March Towards Socialism Part 1

socialism1I was talking with someone the other day who had read my “Brownshirts” article and wanted to let me know how horrible it was of me to have insinuated what I did. They accused me of fear mongering and not giving a fair shake to the possible good parts of HR1388. I took pause to consider her thoughts, and eventually decided that I would write this post. Because I say to ignore what we are seeing is insane. I was not fear mongering, or even trying to make the President out to be a bad person. I was pointing out the realities of what is happening in Washington. Perhaps my viewpoints are wrong. But I would like for someone to show me where they are wrong. Her attempts were limited to basically saying passionately that “he just isn’t”. This is the mindset of the average American who isn’t paying attention. But perhaps one of the well read, smart folks here can enlighten me to where I am wrong.

So let me begin by saying why I do what I do. There is the bigger picture of fixing things and making America a better country. But that is the bigger picture. Why shouldn’t I just sit on my ass, collect my government check, embrace the “touchy feely” liberal arguments and simply call myself a better person? I will tell you why: First, I am proud to be a citizen of this country. For all its faults, it has offered the opportunity for a poor kid like me to grow up educated, set my destiny based on what I am worth rather than what I was born into. It has allowed me the freedom to do what I want, think what I want, and more important, SAY what I want. America has plenty of faults, but she is still the greatest country on earth, and I feel lucky to have been born here.

Second, I served my country in the military for a reason. I believed in what we were trying to be. I am not sure of that anymore, only in terms of perhaps the US has overstepped her bounds a bit too often and a bit too forcefully. But don’t take that to mean that I did not serve my country proudly or that I am not proud of what I did for it. And don’t take that to mean that I don’t have tremendous respect for all who have served and continue to do so. They are my brothers and sisters, and I will defend every one of them to the death. A simple step in that military process for me was in taking my oath when entering the military. Allow me to enlighten those who have never heard or taken it with the oath I speak of:

“I, USWeapon, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

taking-oath-militaryI meant it when I took that oath. As I said it, I felt as though I was becoming a patriot in the same ways that all of our forefathers did so long ago. It was a dedication to something bigger than myself. It was a pledge not to my country, but to my countrymen, that I would defend the Constitution against all enemies. I assumed when I took that oath that the domestic part was only relevant to traitors. I no longer assume that. I now have found that domestic enemies to the Constitution are everywhere, from the halls of Congress, to the streets of San Francisco. They aren’t traitors, but they are in fact enemies of the Liberty that the Constitution was meant to protect. They reside on the right and the left, in every race, in every religion, and in every economic class. They aren’t all bad people, in fact most of them are good people with good intentions, who have simply lost sight of what this country was meant to be.

That part of the oath about obeying anyone died with my separation from the military ten years ago. But the oath to protect the Constitution did not. And it shall not, until freedom and liberty re-appear in America, or the Constitution is burned and America no longer exists. My writing here and doing what I do politicly is about furthering my actions to protect Freedom, to continue that oath, as the Constitution represents liberty and freedom from oppression by government. I see it being eroded away, bit by bit, like rock is eroded by water. Where once a proud beacon of liberty stood, the river of tyranny has eroded a grand canyon of government control and expansion, socialistic mindsets, and deference of individual liberty to a collective of societal control. We are still the most free country on earth, but those freedoms continue to be worked down by the river of tyranny consistently over time. 

I initially thought that this would be a two part article about the march towards socialism. I have realized that this may not be sufficient. I instead now only promise that I will be as pointed as possible and limit where I can. But I will do as many “parts” as necessary to get all I want to say out. Right now I am thinking it will be 3 or 4 parts, but it could end up 5 or 6. I need to say what I see and get those who seem unable to grasp my positions to understand what I see and what I believe it means. 

As this will be a running series of posts, let me begin by defining some of my terms. I think this is important because a failure to do so will lead to misunderstandings later. When I say a certain group is doing x or is x, I want to make sure that people don’t misinterpret who I am talking about and apply it to themselves when I did not mean it to be so. So I begin with defining my terms, and you can tell me where I am wrong…

gop-earmarksLet’s begin with Conservatives. I have come to dislike the term conservatives because there is no real true definition for the them politicly any longer. There are the neocons (lower taxes and alternative welfare) , the fiscal conservatives (smaller government, lower national debt, nothing social), Social Conservatives (Religious mindset), Crunchy Conservatives (good stewards earth and avoiding materialism), Paleo Conservatives (connection with past,  opposed vulgarity in modern culture, mass immigration want complete withdrawal of US military troops from foreign countries). You get the point. There are many varieties. Unfortunately conservative in America has become synonymous with Republican or with Christian. And that isn’t accurate. 

For me personally, conservatism rests largely with the fiscal conservatives. When I say conservative, I mean that I want a smaller government in both size and scope. I want more focus on individual liberties and the tenets of the Constitution. So when I say conservative, that is what I mean. The other definitions don’t fit for me. 

That leads me to the Christian Right. This doesn’t equate to all christians. There are christians on the right and left, republicans and democrats, gay and straight, black and white. The christian right is the powerful group of evangelicals who control a good portion of the Republican message these days. They are anti-gay, anti-abortion, and often anti-anything but christian. I have no problem with their beliefs. When I speak of my problem with the christian right, it is with their insistence on legislating their beliefs on others or forcing others to act in accordance with their beliefs. They have thus far usually stopped short of legislating a national religion, but I think they certainly would if they could. 

liberal_halloweenLiberals are my name for “Statists”. And this is why I objected to BF calling me a statist. Liberals (and from this point on liberal and statist are interchangeable terms for me) believe in the supremacy of the state. “For the modern liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of the of a utopian state. In this, modern liberals promote what has been described as a soft tyranny, which over time increases in oppressiveness,” (Levin, 2009). I believe Levin gets it right here. Liberals want the state to take control. Their appetite is unending. The liberals concoct one pretext and grievance after another to manipulate public perceptions and build popular momentum for the divestiture of of liberty and property from its rightful owner, (Levin Again).

The liberal demonizes the industrious, earnest, and successful as perpetrators of various offenses against the public good, which justifies the intervention of government on behalf of the endless parade of victims. In this way the perpetrator and victims are subordinated to government’s authority. The perpetrator by theft and the victim by a dependent existence. Government grows and individual liberty dies under the plan of the liberal. 

Republicans and Democrats have unfortunately become two sides to the same coin. I don’t have to define them for you. The two parties are working together to control America’s citizens and expand the power, scope, and size of government. No matter the party in control, no shrinking of government ever occurs. If there is a difference, it is that under total Republican control government grows more slowly than under total Democratic control. Under total Democratic control we have massive explosions in government (See FDR and Obama).

individual-rights-foundationAnd finally we have the Individual. This is who the Constitution was intended to protect. The individual was meant to exist in a civil society. The founders believed that individuals were meant to live free and pursue that which motivates them, not because another man or government says so, but because they were god-given natural rights. Mark that down, god given natural rights, not rights granted by government. And faith DOES play a part here, but not the christian faith alone, all faiths, a belief in a higher power that tells us what is moral and right. The founders were men of faith, although not all of the same faith.

It is important to define a Civil Society, because I believe that my definition is far different from Chris’s definition, which I am feeling that lies more in the view of the liberal or statist society. What is a civil society? One that is guided by morals to do the right things. I believe that Mark Levin again describes the Civil Society best:

In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group. he is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgement. As such, the individual strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends. 

In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish a culture’s identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-being and that of his family. He has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works. 

In the civil society , private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another or denies him his liberty. In the civil society, a rule of law, which is just, known, and predictable, and applied equally, albeit imperfectly, provides the governing framework for and restraints on the polity, thereby nurturing the civil society and serving as a check against the arbitrary use of, and hence, abuse of power.


Authors of The Federalist Papers

Authors of The Federalist Papers

I believe that the government was meant to do little more than allow free men to judiciously pursue what they believe is right to pursue. Government was not meant to make things fair and equitable (read as everyone has equal economic status), but instead ensure that any man who chose to work hard and succeed has the ability to do so. Government was meant to be very limited. The founders recognized that the greatest threat to liberty was an all-powerful central government. They also know that without government, despotism would be the result of anarchy which would result from rule of the mob. They therefore formed the Constitution, which granted the government enough authority to to cultivate, promote, and secure the blessings of liberty, while not giving government enough authority to destroy it all. 


In the Federalist 51, James Madison, arguably the most influential of the Constitution’s authors, summed it up best when he said, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern man, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”. This has proven more difficult than even Madison envisioned. 

So there are my definitions. I look forward to your thoughts as to where I am wrong on them, especially in terms of the civil society. I know BF will have an argument why government cannot do what Madison stated, and therefore should be abolished. I tend to believe that the founders were a pretty smart group of guys, and they realized that BF is wrong to think society could work without government. 

Part two will delve into the paths of government past that have gotten us to the present. I am thinking that it will be on Tuesday night. I figure a day or two in between parts of this series will give better opportunity to discuss each section. The in-between nights will be something less “weighty”. Still looking for next Friday’s guest commentary, so if anyone is contemplating it, feel free to send it along!

Sorry I forgot to put the Levin Reference in here:

Levin, M. (2009). Liberty and Tyranny. Chapter 1. Simon and Schuster Printing, New York, NY. 


  1. You might be interested in our site. One hopefully a bit unique.

  2. Liked most of the article, just not the part about faith.

    • USWeapon says:

      Do you mean the part where I described the Christian Right or the part where faith plays a part in a civil society?

      • I do find it interesting that you take such issue with the Christian Right attempting to legislate morality, yet in your definition of a civil society clearly morality plays a prominent role. I admit that your problem is more with the Christian bent than with the basic tenets of the social contract that need show no such bias. But then again are the two so easily divided? The founding fathers and authors of the Constitution were Christian men. Their ideas about the sanctity of human life and liberty must have been influenced by their Christian background. Even if you reduce their religious persuasion to Deism rather than strict Christianity, there still remains a clear perception that these rights were endowed by God.

        Today the people of the United States lack such a common background. More and more rational people look at religion logically and come to the conclusion that belief in any organized religion is problematic. As such largely the trend for many Americans has been a move away from churches of any kind. I am not arguing that the Bible Belt is disintegrating or that our country is filled with atheists. I think it would be more accurate to understand the change as resulting from a general apathy. But if we cannot as a country agree on fiscal matters, what hope do we have in moral ones? I have read on this site several times that our public schools are hotbeds of brainwashing (I admit I never attended a public school so I do not know personally), and arguably an agreed upon morality should be taught to children as early as possible. So where does this leave us? Do we end up in a Lord of the Flies existence where the most powerful decide what rules they want all of us to follow? To me that does not seem like a civil society.

        • ddk,
          I think that morality is not limited to the Christian Right. I believe in having some form of faith. I also recognize that free men are permitted to have no faith should they choose. The founders were mostly based in Judeo-Christian values and beliefs, however they were clear that no state religion would be placed upon the masses. Their intent was not that we have a society based on Christian beliefs, but instead on morality, which faith often fosters. I do believe that a civil society uses the belief that some higher power has a set of morals that guide us, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Whatever.

          Perhaps we do now lack a common background. But I submit that this isn’t the problem. The problem is that parents are not raising their children to respect others, to work hard for what they want, etc.

          • I agree that it is the parents’ responsibility to intill moral values and not the government or the schools. But the fact remains that in our “March toward Socialism,” as our government grows to a size never imagined by the founding fathers, that the government more and more will make it their mission to take over this part of our lives. As was discussed earlier with the sin taxes on cigarettes and sugared soft drinks, the government has taken the stance that they, not parents or even individual adults, can be trusted with making good decisions. I know that the sin taxes are more a convenient way of generating revenue under the guise of caring about the health of the people, but isn’t the move toward socialism essentially the same thing? There was a time that the church was relied upon for such social programs as hospitals, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. As the church wanes the government has taken it upon itself to fill this void. Say what you will about the church, but I don’t find this to be a preferable situation.
            Again I have to wonder how we find an agreed upon moral center. I do not think religion is the answer, but then what is? As we approach the seemingly inevitable socialist state we are going to continue to be told the government knows best how we should interect with each other (i.e. the rich should care for the poor). Can a civil state truly function on a scale as large as the US?

          • TexasChem says:

            Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

            George Washington stated-

            “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” –

            I agree that I believe their intent was to keep religion from being mandated to the people by the government.I disagree that our society was not to be based on Christian beliefs.

            Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.
            To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.

            William Blackstone stated:

            “The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.”

            As I have stated before any successful society has a standard by which they set their codes of law.That standard has been religion.Americas’ happens to be Judeo-Christian.It’s definitely not any other religion in the worlds standard that we live by.So therefore our morality in this nation stems from the christian beliefs which dictates our mores.

            I do not disagree with you US that other religions do not have morals that a society could pull from.Some the same as our own as you have stated but, what I am saying is that this nation historically from the time of founding has been predominantly christian faith based because of our founders beliefs.It is what they intended.

            • TexasChem says:

              If it was not working as intended then why else would the predominant religion in America be Christian?

        • Ddk,

          There was a post here a few back on “Silencing Christianity”.
          Have you read that and posted any thoughts?

  3. esomhillgazette says:

    Well! I’ll be danged! I’m up late enough at the moment to be first. y the way US, another great post! I really don’t know what you would call me. I am Christian, But don’t want Religion in my Government. I think I hve stated in Previous posts why that is so. I believe in the smallest Federal Govt possible. I also believe in a small State Government. I think the govt should have minimal influence in peoples lives. While I know that we SHOULD pay a certain amount of tax, the amount we pay at this time is enormously too much, considering we are taxed for every thing you could possibly think of.

    What kind of Conservative does that make me? I don’t know. I know I’m not another BF. I do believe we need some kind of Govt. It would be nice if everyone could just live together in harmony and do the right thing just because it was right. It would be nice if everyone had good morals and lived by them. But the reality is, they don’t. And they never will. Some of us do of course, ut we are far outnumbered by those who are only out for themselves and what is best for them. This is the World we live in today.

    Reading the top of your article, I was struck by you saying that the woman kept saying as you said, passionately “He just isn’t”. Not being as nice as you and a bit more of a hothead, I would have told her “oh yes he is”! Obama is sending this Nation down the road to Socialism just as fast as he can run us! He is being backed by those such as Nazi Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks, and Diane Fienstien. How far they will be able to take us is a question. My answer would have to be that, just as far as we let them!

    Also, like you, I have served in the Military. I took my oath seriously as well. Duty, Honor, and Country are not just words to me. Sometimes I think that you should have to serve in the Military to be a Citizen, like in Starship Troopers. Yes. I know that wouldn’t really work. There are just too many folks out there who aren’t cut out to be in the Military. But I also know that my 17 yr. old ass went in a boy, and came out a man. When I came back home, even after Basic, my friends really seemed like kids to me, like they had never grown up.

    Other values that I have were instilled into me by my Parents amd Grandparents. Sure, I strayed when I was younger, but I still came back to my raising.

    When I went to school, if you did wrong, you got your ass busted and sent back to class. Not anymore. Now there’s ISS and OSS and counseling. Discipline as I knew it there is gone. And boy does it ever show! My parents would have whipped my ass good for things I see kids these days do with absolutely no discipline at ALL from the parents. It’s not their fault. The teacher has something against them. They have ADD or ADHD. Horsedookey!

    It ain’t anything in the world a good asswhipping wouldn’t cure, provided it started early enough. I see kids today also talk to their parents like I wouldn’t talk to a DOG! If they were mine, they’d be picking their teeth up off the floor. I’ve never had to do that with mine though. Just knowing that I will is enough to stop them.

    What is the answer to these and other problems facing us today? I’m not sure. ut I can say one thing with absolute certainty. We as a Nation are going in the exact OPPOSITE direction that we need to be going. And if we don’t fix it soon. It’s going to be too late. Once out freedoms are gone. They’re gone for good. We’ll only go further down hill from there. We must stop them NOW!!!

    • RWBoveroux says:

      “It would be nice if everyone could just live together in harmony and do the right thing just because it was right. It would be nice if everyone had good morals and lived by them. But the reality is, they don’t.”—Esomhillgazette.

      Sir, you are correct that people do not have good morals, live in harmony, and do what is right. There is a very simple reason why this is. It is called Sin. It started a LONG time ago when two people decided that they know better than the Almighty God and chose to break the one simple rule that they were given by their Creator. It has resulted in our living in a fallen and broken world.

      Fortunately, there will be a time when that Fallenness will end and we will live in the world that was described.

  4. Obama’s plan to open the borders, reduce the size of the military, devastate the economy by growing the size of government and entitlement programs (and taxing the American people to death to pay for it), and taking away our guns and disarming our nukes, will move this country to a more second rate European socialist style of government. I don’t know how else to put it to convince the liberals that this is not a good thing for the American people other than when you no longer have the oppurtunity to make, buy, sell or fail America will be in the grip of tyrants.When you no longer have the right to determine your childs future scholastics because they first have to be indoctrinated for three years in the Americorps rather than off to college they may see the light then.

    If we do not set limits on who can enter, control our existing borders, and start enforcing our current immigration laws, this country is going to start experiencing the same problems Europe is facing today. If you doubt this, please do some research on what is happening today in France, and has already happened in Spain. If the immigration chart/graph in the immigration section does not alarm you, you either have your head buried in the sand or you did not do well in high school math and do not understand graphs.Obama has already announced his intentions to legalize criminal illegal immigrants in our country.Expect that sometime in May.He is allowing less strict legislation to student visas, work visas and allowing muslim communities to be transplanted to this country under the context that they are refugees.Guess what folks?Those people will be beholden to him and if you doubt for one second that every one of those votes wont be for his agenda you have been beaten with the “stupid stick” one to many times.

    Today in the United States, immigrants are pouring in at 2.3 million annually–both legal and illegal–our nation shudders from San Francisco to New York and from Chicago to Miami. We rose from 200 million to nearly 300 million in three decades. What was once a benefit to our country is now a full-scale overpopulation and societal crisis. Our English language is under assault and our schools are drowning in ethnic violence, rapes, drugs and gang warfare. In California, Texas, Florida and Arizona, our hospitals suffer bankruptcies from non-paid services for 350,000 annual ‘anchor babies’. Ten million illegal immigrants displace jobs from America’s working poor and depress wages for many others. Leprosy, tuberculosis, Chagas Disease, hepatitis and other diseases ‘pour’ into our country within the bodies of illegal immigrants who avoid health screening before coming on board the United States. Even worse, clashing cultures with religions that celebrate ‘female genital mutilation’ and subjugation of women are growing in enclaves around our country.

    As Lincoln said, ‘A house divided against itself can not stand.'”

    Things are NOT happening right under the nose of the American people.We all are guilty of not doing something to stop this.I am going to a tea party on the 15th. but that feels like I’m just not doing enough to me.We need a leader to step up and lead this country in the direction it was meant to be led not some puppet on strings being directed by the likes of George Sorros and Bill Ayers.

    • In “assesing the worlds rock star” I posted the 28 Fundamental beliefs of our Founding Fathers on post #14.
      Untill we can regain those principles not only in our government but in our society as well I see no other future for my country than socialism.The dhimmicrats and their supporters are embedded like ticks into our social network from schoolyard to capitol hill and have been influencing this society and pushing it in the direction it is rolling for decades.Republicans are just as guilty for allowing this to happen.The ball only rolled a lot slower but it still rolled with them.

  5. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi US Weapon,

    Another great article…In the past, I’ve always self-described myself as a “Liberal Republican”. To me, the label of “Fiscal Conservative” fits much better for me. As I read these posts, I see some posters say that they hate labels…I personally don’t mind for myself…It helps me understand where I fit in under the big picture (generally). Everyone brings up valid points for the reasons that they have their “Stand” on their position.

    Regarding your article, the Mark Levin description of a civil society really sums up what I’ve always believed that America was intended to be. He has somehow summed up what was taught/inferred in my family growing up. To me, his summary just makes sense and is what I just “know to be” intuitively. I had never heard of him before, but will be sure to research him further!

    IMO, it seems that BOTH of the two major parties have polarizing viewpoints that just don’t seem to represent the bulk of “normal” people. It seems that BOTH parties are too extreme on TOO MANY issues (i.e. biting off more than can be chewed) in attempts to pander to their “base”.

    One thing that does bother me is the “My Side Won” mentality (therefore, we’ll do it my way). That must stop because on January 20th of election cycles, the elected POTUS is “supposed” to become the leader for 100% of the US Population, not 51%, not 75%, etc…IMO, the POTUS must steer away from creating an environment that serves 5% of the population’s viewpoints – example a radical group such as “Tree-Huggers”). Maybe I’m being to simplistic here… Please note: I’m just using example percentages, ’cause I don’t know the “valid” percentages. In addition, when I say “Radical”, I don’t mean it in a negative way as these radical groups do believe what they believe…I guess you could say that I am radical because of my extreme views on upholding the 2nd Amendment!

    In regards to the Title of this article: Marching Towards Socialism (Part 1) – I do believe that we are well on our way…that attempts are being made to chip away piece by piece the foundation of what America is. I believe that most normal people are not seeing this (they may see it, but refuse to believe that it could be happening).

    Sometimes I feel so Helpless…but I assure you, my days of playing the ostrich game have come to an end…Now, I value my backend that is vulnerable and sticking up in the air too much to put my head in the sand. Who knows, maybe eventually, I’ll need to resort to the old Cavewoman game and go hide completely, but at least I’ll understand that and be prepared…plus, taking my head out of the sand allows me to fight for what I do believe in.

    I’ve only been on your site for about a month now US Weapon…this short month has truly been an eye-opening experience for me. Sometimes it does get rather “cerebral” and I have a hard time keeping up (have to visit the dictionary and Wikopedia alot!…but hey, that’s a good thing!) just so I can get an inkling of the idea being presented on some of the posts. Before coming to your site, I felt lost and alone in understanding what/who my political core was. Your site and most of it’s posters have become a compass for me; you and your posters are helping me to define my political courage and continued growth/maturity in such a positive way! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    Warm and kind regards to all here!

    Richmond Spitfire

    • Richmond,

      It strikes me that people reject labels for several reasons. Stereotyping comes from labels and leads to an illusion of understanding a position. Mr. Obama provides an excellent example: “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” That illusion is a function of perception — kudos to USW for defining his terms — even if we think we agree, how can we both be sure that we are talking about the same thing?

      IMO, a label allows us to neatly categorize an entity and can prevent us from learning any more about it — because of the illusion that we already know.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi CSM,

        True, but with the sheer volume of opinions, I personally can’t help but to categorize to some degree at a high-level. I’m always open to “re-categorizing” as my opinion changes.

        P.S. When I post, I try VERY hard to never get personal and call a specific person a “name” (i.e. my label for them). In most cases, I truly do respect differing opinions.

        So, I’ve re-categorized myself and now belong this category:

        “Conservative-Fiscal Responsibility-Smaller Govt/Leave Religion out of School/Gun-Toter/Gov’t Stay out of My Business/Leave Gays Alone/Non-Socialist/Smokers Anonymous/Eaters Anonymous/Parent of Small Kids/Parent of Older Kids/Caregiver of soon to be Older Parents/Stay out of my Healthcare/Lower my taxes/Personal Pride/Personal Responsibility/Give help to People who Really Need it-Welfare Reform/Down with all trees except Dogwoods and Japanese Redleaf Maples/Reduce dependency on Foreign Oil/Drill where we can/Only appropriate Gifts to Foreign Leaders/Get rid of the Somali Pirates/Why is it important that Biden’s daughter did Cocaine/Down with Obabma for Bowing/How could Michelle touch the Queen/Does Bo the Dog really stand for Barack Obama/Shut-up about the Gun-show Loophole/Stop the Brown-Shirting/put a moat filled with crocodiles along the US/Mexico Border”

        Does anyone out there have anything in common with me…just joking!

        I’m sure I’ll need to re-categorize myself as it becomes necessary.

        My point is that “I” must perform some high-level categorizing otherwise, I’ll go nuts trying to keep straight of everyone’s opinions and where I think they may be coming from when reading their posts, listening to their speeches, talking on the phone with friends/family. If a person is willing to further clarify their viewpoints, beliefs, etc. then I’m willing to re-label them to a category that fits my special category definition…Which, to address your point CSM that “categories” could (and most likely) do mean something totally different from someone else’s perspective.

        • I like your self-definition – with one addition — — do not, under any circumstances, consider a sin tax for chocolate!

          I think the point I really wanted to make is that we need to be aware of our perceptions and how they can (probably not PC) handicap us. 🙂 c

        • esomhillgazette says:

          I don’t know Spitfire. I kind of like your definition of yourself. Sounds kind of like mine!

      • IMO, a label allows us to neatly categorize an entity and can prevent us from learning any more about it — because of the illusion that we already know.

        Very well said csm. I should also note that while I use the labels to help the discussion along without redefining every time I use them, I am very open to learning about the individual rather than their label. For example, I don’t shut down to hearing what Chris has to say simply because he is a liberal. His overall view does not negate his opinions or thoughts on improving the country. It does let me know his basis for opinion up front.

      • CsM, Spitfire, et al: Re; labels.

        Labels are totally OK, if we do not let them prevent us from further investigation and adaptation if needed. That is what humans who use Reason do to understand the world and to pass that knowledge on to others.

        More to the political point. I believe it is important to understand the labels used today in two contexts. First is the original or historical use of the term and Second is how it changed over time. Why you say? Because it leads us to understand why we so often feel confused and conflicted. Words and their meaning have been coopted by some very clever people to confuse and mislead us. If we don’t stop and challenge these changes we are lost because pretty soon two entirely different words mean the same thing, this killing any debate.

        For example, our founders were Liberals. They proposed a radical change from the historic norm based on expanding individual liberty. Those opposed to change were Conservatives. Now as time goes by the leftists, aka fascist/socialist/communists, or statists coopted the term Liberal on the premise that social justice was some form of human progress. The old liberals then became Conservative as they tried to defend the rights of man to be free of govt control. This creates frustration among the population because we have known for decades that change (liberal) is good, after all it is what America is all about. Standing still and certainly supporting monarchies (conservative) is bad. Great granddad told me so. I don’t want to be a conservative so I’ll support Liberals. Another, not that many decades ago Conservationists were those who believed that “wise use” of our environment was key to our longterm survival. We need to be “wise” and “conserve” so future generations will have the same good life we do. Then came the new environmental movement who’s mission was primarily stop all use. At first they were called “preservationists” becasue they wanted to preserve the world in its current, or some past, state. But they quickly coopted the more mainstream, moderate, word and started calling them selves “Conservationists”. This of course left no word to describe the old “wise use” crowd so they got labeld as “industry hacks” or “flat earthers”. You get the idea.

        Please note the effort being made to label tea parties as “conservative” or “republican” or both. See how we are confused and in fact afraid to call ourselves conservative, because the left has tied the word to right wing fascists and that in turn to evangelical Christians, ie. “right wing Christians”.

        Our words, and their meaning, have been the vicitms of a very long propoganda campaign. The only answers are to 1) make sure we define what we mean, as USW did above, 2) take the meaning back (very difficult), or 3) create new words (in todays pop culture may be easier than #2 but still damn hard).

        Spitfire: Per your list, with one exception I would place you right next to me as a Radical Right Wing Liberal. Perhaps not quite as Radical but your getting pretty close. Note that my category is partly defined by the statists who seem to prefer being referred to as “left of center”, which in fact they should be. You see the socialists sat on the left side of the parliament and the capitalists/anti-statists sat on the right side. Hence left and right. Now quiz of the day…..which country?

        All kidding aside. As part of any large scale effort to restore our constitutional heritage we will have to develop a language that we stick with, this includes key words and phrases that descibe who we are. We will have to define these terms and make everyone understand what we mean. Perhaps my label is not the best bust we need something besides “moderates”. The challenge is that the statists have coopted all the words available. To show you how bad it is, when helping some college kids start a new non-partisan political group based on the constitution they were afraid to use the term “traditional American values” because the left had tied this to “right wing Christians”. We settled on “historical” and “original”.

        Sorry for the digression. I just wanted folks to think about this as we discuss the issue raised by USW.
        My Best Wishes

  6. I”ll start today with a question for my fellow vets, and current active duty military members. The oath we all took, most likely as boys and girls, when entering our respective armed services, what the heck happens when the domestic enemy just happens to be the POTUS? Do we defend the Constitution or obey his orders?

    I’ve often wondered how this question would be answered, I know where I stand. I will defend the Constitution. And I think it may come to that some day soon.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi G-Man…

      I too have wondered at this question…?

      I am not, nor have I ever been in the Armed Services, so I personally cannot answer your question.

      I hope that active military and vets do answer this question. I think alot depends on answers to this question.

      Richmond Spitfire

    • G-man, I’ also not a vet. I trust the military to obey LAWFUL orders.

      • Good answer, that puts us on the same page. My daughter in the Coast Guard and I asked her what she would do, she gave the same answer. You two know each other?? LOL!

        • I live in the land that gave you Clinton, so don’t know many coastie’s. What’s scary is Obama’s volunteer corps. This is where USW’s brown shirts come into play. Would they obey any and all orders? Or only lawful ones?

    • CWO2USNRet says:

      G-man, retired US Navy here. An interesting thought exercise. It is important to remember that the military must always remain subservient to elected officials. If the CIC is doing the “wrong thing” the military must still obey unless the “wrong thing” equates to unlawful. Unconstitutional should eventually be determined to be unlawful. The miliary must trust the political process to do the right thing. Anything else would be the beginning of the end.

    • I can answer for myself only. While I served I obeyed the President and the officers appointed over me. I had taken the oath and followed it. When I got out, my pledge to do anything in regard to that oath ended with my contract. However, by choice I decided the first half still would be important to me and I chose that I will continue to protect the Constitution. When I was in the military I was a little more naive and a little less questioning of life. THEN, I would say I would protect the President so long as he was not in blatant conflict with the Constitution. Now, Country and Constitution first, President a distant second. Does that answer where I stand?

    • esomhillgazette says:

      G-Man, Seems like back LONG ago when I went in the Army, they taught us about the Germans being punished for “just obeying orders”. We were taught that you should never obey an “illegal” order. No matter WHO gave it. An example that was given was the Mei Lai Massacre (sp?) in VietNam. Another was the Holocaust in WW2.

      Like you, I would like to think that I would defend the Constitution. I wonder when they wrote the Military Oath, if they ever thought that our Commander in Chief might not have ever served, nor would have a clue how to Command. Or that he might be the very one GIVING that unlawful order?

      I don’t think Obama would do such a thing. You just started me to thinking. I think I need to ponder on this some more. No hurry though. I am FAR too old to be called up! However, it IS still my Country. I would defend my Country in an instant.

      • Regarding My Lai, Lt Calley was spitted & skewered. While the whole thing is a terrible tragedy, it shows the problem w/ trying to put limits on many of these “kids” in service. A “free-fire zone” is just that, and he never should have been tried.
        As for enforcing the constitution, we have seen what happened during Katrina, with Guard and Police seizing lawful guns from lawful owners in open disregard for the constitution.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Yeah, my Dad said that the LT that was prosecuted was made a scapegoat. I just used this as an example of following “Illegal” orders. Pity they picked the lowest officer on the totem pole to crucify for it.

  7. Since I disagree with some of your basic premises,I won’t comment much during this series of posts.I will give you two examples where I disagree.

    1-A civil society has no real definition,but is generally considered to be a group of people voluntarily contributing to their own wellbeing.The Innuit of the far north lived in a civil society and had no concept of private property,as did many other earlier societies.The idea of owning anything was foreign to them.All property was the prorerty of the community as a whole.

    2-That my freedoms are God granted is not true as far as I am concerned,as I don’t believe in any Diety at all.That I neeed faith to be moral and just is wrong.I don’t.Humans are inately moral and just.They are more than capable of forming groups that are civil without any formal government.That they are absolutely cabable of forming societies that are not civil by using government or religion as an aid has been demonstrated many times.It still goes on.

    • Bama dad says:

      “In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish a culture’s identity.”

      In the Innuit society the sharing of property is a taught custom and traditon of that society and they know nothing else.

    • Ron,

      Your first point is interesting, but how would that apply to an industrial society?

      Second, as a father of two, humans are inately moral and just? That is an “out there” comment. Go to any day care, and watch the natural behavior of these little tyrants. Mine, gimmie, biting and screaming to get their way.
      Moral behavior is learned.

    • Ron,

      So the inuit do not own property. In which case they are not really free in my mind. They are forever linked to the welfare of their group. One who is brilliant will always be held back by one who is not. They have no ability to make a better life for themselves because they have the anchor of their group. The relative obscurity of the inuits proves this to be true. None have risen above their starting point in life. Owning personal property is a part of liberty and the two do not truly coexist separately.

      I do not contend that anyone needs faith to be moral at all. Some do, others do not. Not all humans are innately moral and just. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need government, and I would imagine we wouldn’t have one because the founders would not have seen the need for one. The Madison statement from Federalist #51 says it all when it comes to this. Humans are not capable of what you hope them to be. Operating without government would doom us under the rule of mob.

      • While it’s true that the Innuit are tied to a group and further tied to the migration of caribou,I think they would be more free than you while you are amassing your private property and then guarding your hoard.

        • On the contrary, I would be more free since it would be MY choice to amassing my private property or guarding my hoard. That is my point, individual liberty. I would be free to amass wealth or live in a cabin in the woods. My choice, not the choice of the people around me.

    • Ron:

      It is because you disagree that you should stay engaged on this and future posts regarding the same subject.
      Your examples are thoughtful which makes others think.

      It does little to expand human knowledge if everyone said I agree or I don’t agree so I’ll see ya later.


    • esomhillgazette says:

      Ron, you said, “Humans are inately moral and just”. In this I wholeheartedly disagree. Maybe you hold this opinion because you are Atheist. As far as that you are entitled to your disbelief. The 1st Amendment (USW Correction) holds that for you.

      But I do not understand how you could think that people are “inately” moral or just. Man is inherently the exact opposite. Morality and Justice are taught to children by Parents and other Authority figures in their lives.

      One major problem in our public schools is that these two things are no longer taught in them. Left to himself, Most of Man would revert back to savage barbarism. There are always exceptions though. Most people are moral and just because Society requires it of them. The prisons of the world are filled with people who are neither moral nor just.

      I am not saying this as a religious commentary either. I am saying that Man without rules to govern his personal life is not inately anything. Every society has rules the society lives by. Even the most Primitive ones.

  8. Well I was happy to this posting, I thought it was a topic that is worth talking about. I have always thought of myself as a middle of the road person. I was raised Christian, served in our military and have a strong sense of beliefs. But on the hand I am also gay. I dont believe on people living on government hand outs, but believe in helping good hard working people when they hit hard times. I dont attend a church, but practice by faith everyday. A government needs to set some limits of what people can or cant do to avoid crazyness. But we also need to secure our borders and protect our freedoms granted to us as citizens. Lately I have felt that our two major parties are the getting to be more and more the same. With slight differences, which scares more and more. I due believe in freedom of religion, so I dont like to see government rules made based on a groups set of beliefs. This has become a very scary time for me in this country. I think we are walking a very tight rope.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Ellen,

      You sure sound “middle of the road” (i.e. ‘normal’) to me. You also sound like someone that I would choose to associate with. I agree alot with what you’ve said.


    • Ellen,

      Welcome! I think that you are what the norm is in America… conflicted. These labels are out there but it seems that none of us fit into one mold. There are those who believe that you cannot be christian and gay (bulldookey). There are those that think I can’t believe in fiscal conservatism while supporting gay rights. All of this type of thinking is incorrect. The labels simply don’t fit. And that is why I sought to define a bit before proceeding. Many of us choose a label and then are offended when it is attacked. Only to later learn that we chose the wrong label in the first place. Labels are good in that they help us to know who we are talking about. But we are each as unique and individual as possible, and thus the labels never truly fit. It sounds like you and I share many common thoughts. I absolutely believe in helping those who are struggling…. voluntarily. I practice faith, but not in a church. And we are definitely walking a very tight rope. We are a slip away from tyranny without a net.

    • Ellen: Welcome to the party. I sure do hope you stay and speak out when you feel like it.

      Re USW’s comment about “we are all conflicted”. It is not the labels, although they help keep confusion supreme.

      It is the lack of a common philisophical system that can be articulated and followed, and that is consistant with what most of us believe are our “original” American values as described by our various founding documents, that is the real cause for our conflict.

      For example, if we start with the individual and the belief that we are all endowed by our creator with certain rights, then the rest starts to flow pretty easy. Please note that the word “creator” is inclusive of many beliefs, including no God at all in which case the creator would be nature.

      Morality and/or the ethics we choose, should be based on the core principle of individual liberty. Tell me where any morality you believe, whether Christian or otherwise, can not be tied back to the ethic that “no man has the right to inititate the use of coersive force on another”.

      Again, welcome

    • Ellen:
      PS. I looks like you also may be a Radical Right Wing Liberal.
      Congratulations, that makes three of us so far.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Hi Ellen, as the apparent Conservative Southern Baptist on US’s post. Welcome! Your Political Views are important here and I agree with JAC above. As JAC said don’t be agraid to speak out on any subject you feel like. All views are welcome here even if we don’t agree. It simply makes for a better discussion.

  9. As I read todays article, and the postings so far, I can’t help but wonder, would this be a topic of discussion in 1976-1980 when Carter was screwing up the country?

    Ron, I’d have to disagree that humans are inately moral and just. If that were true, there would be no crime.

  10. Interesting post and debate. Thanks for a good read.

  11. The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. This post is a suggested read at, 3

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    One thing that is sadly lacking in this country currently is any leadership on the side of “fiscal conservatism” or even on the side of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.

    Until someone with true leadership qualities and enough charisma to win over at least a portion of the media emerges that takes these positions, I fear that we are doomed to our tea parties with no media coverage.

    I do not mean for that to sound discouraging, but today is one of those days where I almost feel that it would be easier to throw up our hands and say, “the Government is going to do what it wants to do anyway” and then use my intelligence to figure out how to extract the maximum handout from the government on a daily basis. Sometimes that just seems so much EASIER than trying to advocate in any meaningful way for “fiscal conservatism”. There are a FEW people in Congress that actually seem to “get it” (Mike Pence from Indiana comes to mind), but they are such a small fraction that it is darn near impossible for them to get any coverage of their ideas, much less get anything accomplished.

    Sorry for the somewhat negative tone of the post today… it is Monday and it is raining, and my kids drove me nuts all weekend so I didn’t really enjoy my weekend. Tell me why I should be in a good mood?

    • Peter, usually when I’m not in the best of moods, or fed up and ready to give up, I just read the news. It’s mostly bad, and when I read how some overpaid athlete gets arrested, I cheer up thinking, I’m poor, but I’m not stupid enough to get put in jail!


    • Peter,

      Your day will get better! You are among friends here now. I agree that we need a charismatic speaker and true leader for the movement back towards the Constitution. The problem is that too often that is an unpopular stance to take (how sad is that?) So the charismatic folks don’t go there, for fear of it limiting their popularity.

    • Peter:

      That would be easier, that’s what they count on. My answer to your depression today is this……….

      Go outside, find a quiet place to stand and then close your eyes and think of what it would feel like to feel free, truly free.
      Visualize the American flag and a long line of Patriot soldiers who have sacrificed for our liberty. The faces of Washington and Jefferson and Madison.
      Then repeat these words to yourself.
      “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

      Works for me every time.

    • Peter I grab my copy of the NIV Archaeological Bible and read the book of Proverbs to unwind.Wisdom literature that is very fulfilling.I am addicted to learning and the amount of knowledge contained in that one book is amazing.Practical to apply to your every-day lifes challenges even in this age we are in now.NIV version is an updated version of the bible in modern day english.Much easier to understand than the King James version but more acurately deciphered in my opinion.

      • Peter,
        Sometimes it helps the ‘overwhelmed’ feeling if you do something to improve your little corner of the world. After all, we can only have control over our own actions….

      • esomhillgazette says:

        TC, I have the NAS version. Or as I like to call it, the Esom Hill Version. Both are easier to understand than the KJV.

  13. Ray Hawkins says:

    What is the actual Levin reference?

  14. Ray Hawkins says:

    Shaping up to be an interesting read. As one of the very few liberals (or – only liberal I guess) on this board I’ll simply offer the observation that when I have posed real-life business problems to this board I usually only get the canned ‘big government bad responses’ rather than example of how a contra-statist approach would actually look and feel. What has shown thus far is equally lofty rhetoric that is so easily condemned. That said – cannot wait to see where the solutions leak in.

    • Fair point. I will attempt in the comments to an article to answer better as to solutions. But I do believe that “big government bad” is a valid point, lol.

    • Ray: The only example I remember you posting was the issue over loss of personal information and notification of clients. I tried to answer and I believe one poster actually provdided a more detailed solution. If you thought my answer was “lofty rhetoric” I am sorry. In the example you gave I could see no reason for the need for federal govt standards or regulations. I still maintain it was a leadership problem.

      For example, in response to growing pressure for “sustainable forest products” created by a fairly radical environmental group, the timber and paper industry of the USA managed to get together and develop standards for determining, monitoring and classifying “sustainable forest management practice” and “sustainable forest products”. The latter has to come from the former. Whether you agree with their standards is not important. The point is this very large and diverse group was able to create a single coordinated set of proceedures within less than two years.

      Others use support of the poor or response to natural disasters as examples of need for federal govt. I remind everyone that it was our charity that took care of the poor before FDR and LBJ decided to make it a govt responsibility. Ray, I ask that you think about what effect govt’s role in welfare has had on our charity towards the poor. I believe it has eroded our sense of community and with it our charity. As for natural disasters I put forth the greatest example of all….San Francisco earthquake. There was no federal govt around and yet the job got done. FEMA actually started, by the way, as a coordination effort because of the Feds resources. They had people and radios and could help state and local folks plan for and coordinate recovery efforts. Didn’t take long for everyone to start thinking they were supposed to actually take over and run the whole damn thing.

      If you have other examples I am more than willing to think them through with you, but for it to work you must also be open to the possibitlity that another solution is possible and put your “lofty rhetoric” aside as well. I also want to suggest that what you view as lofty rhetoric may acutally be a statement of principle. If you approach it as such and don’t share the view, then ask questions to get to the root, don’t just dismiss it as rhetoric.

      In the spirit of KISS: I will if you will.
      Best Wishes

      • JAC,

        Another example, all the recent ice storms. Private for profit companies react to natural disasters with greater success than government every time. The gov. was still evaluating while the lights were coming back on.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          They respond in kind only if there is profit motive to do so. Do you think the same could have been replicated in Katrina? (not trying to be a SA – just curious on this line of thought)

          • I live in southeast Texas and I can assure you the same was replicated in Katrina.Profit drove the will to react to the disaster but hey that’s capitalism at work.The point is, it created jobs for months for people doing clean-up, rebuilding etc…

          • Ray: I do not believe that private individuals could have solved all the problems of Katrina but I suggest you think about, not the failure but the “corporate culture” that allowed it to happen. I also happen to know something about FEMA and big emergency events and the fact remains that communications were wiped out. FEMA nor any state had ever dealt with the magnitude of collapse in the system. FEMA has some blame but mostly on the state and locals. Why? Because up to Katrina it was not FEMA’a job to take over. Not until it turned to you know what and Georgie ordered them to fix it. But if you have never fixed it before how do you know how.

            Now for some real truth. The Feds, and state kept many many private folks out of the area that could have brought relief and rescue, immediately after the storm passed. Remember Walmarts offer of help only to have trucks stopped and held out of New Orleans? Seems there was fear that the good samaritans might get injured, lost, etc. So yes, I do believe the private individuals could have made a real difference in the early going. As big as the problems were they may not have been able to deal with it all. Especially when the criminal element moved in from whereever they came from. Law enforcement is a govt job and should remain so in my book. Althought what they did under the name law enforcement gives me chills.

            To say private individuals only respond if there is a profit motive is disingeneous and pure crap at best. I know people who shipped equipment from the west to LA and Texas and never asked for more than gas to run the damn equip. once they got there. Our federal govt told them to go home, after sitting around for several days. You need to check your political garbage at the door if you really want to discuss how non-govt vs. govt can address these issues.

            Now lets assume, for sake of your argument, that private folks only help if paid. Well aren’t we paying the govt folks to do the same thing? Aren’t all the contractors used getting paid by the fed govt? In fact, there are no volunteers in a govt run operation, they all get paid, BY US WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS, and that includes a margin in each contract for Profit and Risk. If only the private folks help you get a mix of volunteers, for profit and break even work. And very little overhead.

            Now for FEMA. For now it can serve a purpose, namely training and coordination as it was originally intended. Not to rescue but to train locals and to help them plan and organize in advance, and to facilitate coordination of resources (logistics) in case of large emergencies. FEMA= Federal Emergency Management Agency not rescue agency.

            I hope this helps show that there are real reasons for some of our statements and its not just hollow rhetoric.


            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Point taken and understood. Katrina is made a bad example in one light, but it also raises an extension of what I have drawn at several times – the significant complexity, integration and co-dependence of many of the issues we now face are not always best served by the one political philosophy or one approach to problem solving. Without drawing into multiple simultaneous debates here, my main point is that you cannot put everything into one neat box, affix a label to it and stick to your guns to hope it goes right. Back to my field (InfoSec) – there are multiple theories on things such as security architecture that run the gamut of liberal and conservative approaches. My argument is that security, or solutions, should be right sized for the problem. If I am reading your response properly you are suggesting the same thing – a Feds only, States only or privates only approach would simply not work. My extension of this is that many of our problems have that “Katrina-attribute” – utterly astonishing complex and systemic problems wherein the lifetime of the solution must be right-sized for the problem, be flexible and responsive in approach and dynamism and have a terminus. As many of you have accurately pointed out – too many of the solutions put forth by the Federal Government have not resulted in a guiding hand, but merely a big hand that both takes from and gives to.

              • I truly do believe these issues would be better solved under one philosophy, namely one more “conservative” or “radical right wing liberal” in nature. That does not dictate one approach, only that we should look first to the pvt sector, then local, then state, and last of all the fed govt to fix problems. If we ideologues are right, we would never get to the federal. There is also a distinction between the ideal, which is what I, Black Flag (not the same ideal by the way) and others are describing here most of the time and application to current issues. That may be why it sounds like dogma or rhetoric to some, but it is the reflection of a principle.

                I would bet my bottom dollar, think I used that last time, that I could find a private sector solution to your information security issue. Note there are now internet companies marketing their ability to protect you identity. Of the laws you are dealing with I am only familiar with one, HIPPA. I had to deal with it for 3 years and it cost us a bunch of money and it did have teeth, and it didn’t do one damn thing to really protect patients or to improve their care. We would have lost our state license for non compliance. We were audited completely once a year with periodic random checks. Given its objective I think HIPPA was a joke. A good example of the Congress passes a law and the govt writes CFR’s in knee jerk reaction to a building problem. We could have met the objective in many different ways but we had only those options the Fed contacts had given the state. One doctor in town stopped taking Medicaid and insturance. Went to cash only and cut his rates by 50%. Of course he laid off 2 full time clerks who’s sole job was HIPPA, Medicaid and Insurance filing requirements.

                Not all of us here think NO govt is the answer. ONly very damn little. If a simple civil or criminal law will suffice then we don’t need new federal regulations. Perhaps a couple of lawsuits would have changed the benefit/cost analysis on doing nothing about stolen information. If we were ever to implement a truly free market system we would keep the lawyers very busy rewriting most of our laws. We would move to a punishiment based system instead of trying to prevent every bad thing from happening, in effect legislating risk out of life. It just can’t happen.

                My admission that some use of pvt, state and fed may be appropriate goes to US’s comment that we haven’t had a true free market solution. In short, we can’t just jump from where we are to very damn little govt. We need to figure out how to transition. A lot like company mergers. You develop new systems and then have to teach everyone how to use them.

                Your comment about right sizing is dead on. Most govt involvment doesn’t allow it, but pvt sector does most of the time, and always if there truly is a profit motive. It may take a while but capitalism does result in the most efficient allocation of resources. Of course it is also very dynamic which means things can change before efficiency is achieved. But then you just improvise, adapt, and live to fight another day.

                I will try to find some info on the timber industry certification program for you, although I am not sure it fits your privacy issue. Then again it might. I have also seen situations where the feds simply acted as guidance to states and locals and pvt sector to implement broader programs. The feds actually worked locally to figure out the best rules so everyone was on board from the start. Feds were not regulatory just laison if you will. While it worked I also felt it unnecessary. The particular issue could have been, and should have been handled by pvt sector alone. This was a federal program that helped pay for citizens to cut trees, clear brush and otherwise make their rural properties fire safe.

                All this probably just confused the matter but I hope not.
                Getting late so I’ll leave you with
                Best Wishes

          • Black Flag says:

            Profit motive is CRITICAL in recovering from a disaster.

            The higher profit causes resources to be adjusted from lower profit areas (where no disaster exists) to where a disaster happens.

            It is a DISASTER. Things don’t work. It’s dangerous….and it needs resources.

            The best way to get those resources there is to pay people a lot of money to get it there, and give up their ‘normal’ customers.

            By destroying the profit motive, disasters don’t get fixed. See how long it takes to repair the damage without it – they’re not done even now!!

            There is a reason economics of free men works = and works the best.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I don’t disagree with the sample of charity – but I do fear we are at the point of no return.

        To my other prior example – I didn’t consider your solution lofty rhetoric as much as I considered it very impractical and already tried and failed. To recap, left to its own devices industry has large failed to self regulate when it comes to data security – this has gone on for years and the risk/reward often says it costs less to suffer the penalty of losing your credit card number to a hacker (for example). Large banks assume they will lose “x” and account for it in the balance sheet. In their eyes your a pimple on the ass of an electron (harsh example – I know). Wherein a quasi-industrial group chartered to develop standards and compliance and enforcement was tried that too has failed miserably – the most recent example being the payment card industry compliance drive (see also: Wherein the Feds were called upon to do it they have generally failed as well, but, have shown some promise. Efforts like HIPAA have largely been seen as a joke because while they had good intention they lacked teeth. In some cases wherein there was teeth there have been better results. Most of you here appear to me to think this is socialism. My business says, once again, give me one rule to follow – when I have to do 50 different things to the same types of data because the States pushed the regs rather than the Feds then I am pissing money away and passing it on to you. I advocate the Federal approach where encompassing pervasive rules are established along with corresponding penalties – make the severity of non-compliance fit the ‘crime’. Send executives to jail, or change their credit rating, whatever – scale it so the small guy can comply without burying his business (one things PCI and SOX got right I will acquiesce on). Is that Socialism or common sense and good practice?

        • USWeapon says:

          From my perspective Ray, a well thought out response. I also would prefer to see state’s rights re-asserted as this gets us closer to my ideal. I also see your point in regard to a federal standard in the area you are talking about. You are correct to state that we have not seen industry self regulate. But I think that we have to be careful when we say that “your way has failed”. To a large extent many of the ways that we talk about have not been tried in earnest. We cannot truly say a true free market wouldn’t work, because regardless of what democrats tell us, a truly free market has never existed in the modern world. I think that your points are well made, and so are the state’s rights folks, perhaps there is a compromise in the middle, a federal standard agreed to in the interest of interstate commerce, but any company is free to do what they want within their home state under home state rules? Not sure this is the answer, just throwing an idea of compromise out there.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            You’re spot on – in my admittedly narrow example the States got the ball rolling – the Feds are just too dumb to make it work it right.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Ray: I agree with both you and US. I have worked posting accounts to a mainframe in a bank and know that yes, you ARE a pimple as a customer on their balance sheets. It is the same in any other big business.

          It is also that way with big government. Not sure what the answer would be. But I don’t think it will be small government. That will not be allowed. Not by Dems OR Reps.

          As far as Charity goes, without rewards like tax breaks, there will be little charity out there in the future. Very few will give something for no return.

        • First of all, my response to the card deal and HIPPA is on other post prior to this. The systems you describe are not socialism, they are closer to fascism. At its current point it could be quite far from full blown fascism but thats where regulatory controls lead, eventually. I agree that criminals should be put in jail. I am not sure how your example fits the statement. Perhaps therein lies the problem. Should it really be a crime to not notify a client that the companies computers were hacked into and my personal data may have been stolen?

          Lets look at the corporate culture angle. Why would any company not tell its clients in a timely fashion? Because they have gotten used to federal and state regulations on such matters and they are afraid of action or litigation by govt. I have seen this type of cultural fear in board rooms. That is the net effect of over regulation. Then the companies start hiring lobbyists to protect their interest or gain advantage. Then the politicians start using their fear to coerce campaign donations. I have heard, but have not confirmed that while there are hundreds of lobbyists in D.C. representing medical profession, pharma, AARP etc., there is only one lobbyist covering the verterinarian industry. And he works only part time. Why???? The feds don’t regulate veterinarians. Yet somehow, vets do their thing and most folks seem quite happy with their service. (I understand what rules they have govern storage and use of certain medicines that could be used by drug addicts)

          Of course I have now let the cat and dog out of the bag. I apologize in advance to my vet. friends.LOL

          Getting very tired so I’ll see you tomorrow

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi Ray,

          Specifically in regards to Info Security, I do believe that there is a “payoff” that corporations are willing to take without a large amount of Government Regulation.

          That “payoff” has to do with the ability of a customer to “TRUST” the company. If a customer doesn’t “TRUST” a company to be a good caretaker of their $, then they will leave and find a company that will! The company that I work for takes Information Security VERY seriously as we value our BRAND and will do almost anything to protect our customers. I am in the Technology area (not Info Security) and I see projects all the time where Info Security is a high priority and taken very seriously.

          I think the Government would be helpful from the standpoint of R&D and setting standards for Info Security (afterall, we do have the GREATEST military Intelligence in the world). Alot of smaller companies just don’t have the $ to throw at Info Security so government’s “minimum standards” would greatly help these smaller companies.

          Kind Regards,

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Wait – so in your example the industry is monitoring its own practices? Please tell me I am wrong – that is almost always a recipe for fraud and abuse. Is there any independence factored in?

        • No. They use independent third parties who complete inspections according to the protocols and proceedures established. You need to remember that “Green” is primarily a marketing tool. The environmental groups invented it as a way to blackmail industry into getting on board their agends. Convince the public that Sustainable Products are the only ethical products. My point is how quickly a very large group of diverse companies pulled together and set standards.

          I will respond to our credit card example a little later. Got to visit with my kids.


          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Hmmm – interesting – I think that is close to what I suggest would work in lieu of a Federal approach that is right-sized and wields a proper stick. I should need to read more if you have links to share.


  15. As depressing and confused this atmosphere is…I use the below story to remind me of why I love America:

    A class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich,
    a great equalizer.

    The professor then said ….OK, we will have an experiment in this class on “SOCIALISM”.

    All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

    After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

    But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

    The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    ALL FAILED, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also
    ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when
    government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

    • Right on Pat!

      I heard that story many years ago, and I thought I was the only one who would remember it. Thank you for shaking my old brain loose! 😉

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Pat, I cut and pasted the story so that I can remember it for use later. Hope you don’t mind. Do you or anyone know the taxation story? It’s about the men buying lunch and dividing the check according to their salaries. If I can find it, I will post it.

      • No problem…I did the same thing. And I do know the other story you mentioned. I’ll look around too.

        I would like to share this with you. I apologize if this has been discussed before, but if true, America is in trouble.

        The Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about now!
        This Bill, sponsored by none other than our “President”, former Sen. Barrack Obama, with the backing of now V/P Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.
        The noble sounding name of this bill, “The Global Poverty Act” is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That’s on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid that we already pay out! In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates. According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations’ goals as benchmarks for U. S. spending. What are they?
        The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.
        A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command. A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
        The ratification of the “Kyoto” global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.
        Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden was) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion!
        Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don’t they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes? It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.
        Please write, call or email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions
        regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats of our freedom and economic prosperity.

  16. Black Flag says:

    I’ll start with my view on the general concept presented in the post.

    I do not see the move to “Socialism” by the Democrats as any more great threat then the move to “Fascism” by the Republicans.

    They are the same government.

    It is a log roll.

    Both parties share power with an agreement that while in power, one side will not threaten the power base and structure of the other.

    So the people are drowned on the wrong side of the log as it rolls one way, then back the other – and the people under water cheering for one side or the other to right the log!

    But it will never happen. To right the log means the power structure must fundamentally and systemically change – and the elite have have inoculated itself to prevent this.

    The log roll game keeps most of the citizenry engaged – but wholly ineffective. One side cheers when it rolls this way, while the other side boos and catcalls – then it rolls the other way, and the cheers and catcalls shift as well. All great a show, and does its job – keep the public believing in the process that is killing them.

    One can see that core policies do not change as the party in power changes.

    -We are still at war
    -We are still printing money like it was, well, paper money.
    -The government debt is growing exponentially.
    -Size of government has never shrunk.
    -More laws being passed restraining the freedom of the people.
    …etc. etc.

    It would hard to find any policy that has been reversed. Each party builds on the last – even if it was ‘the other team’.

    So fear not, USWep, the facists will return to power, and roll the log the other way for awhile.


    I can see why your face turned red when I called you a Statist.

    You have ‘supremacy’ of the State, more defined from ….the Fascist concept of statism which holds that “basic concept that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.

    where my definition is ‘believer or supporter’ of the State.
    …Ideological passive or active support for any government and/or its practices, as a measure of degree.

    I do not see you as a Statist by your definition, but I do by mine.

    As a measure of good faith and respect, I’ll avoid using the label of Statist toward you – it is not my intention to draw you as a Fascist, and as this is your primary definition, (and this is your site 😉 ) I’ll leave you as the final arbitrator of definitions here.

    In the Federalist 51, James Madison, arguably the most influential of the Constitution’s authors, summed it up best when he said, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern man, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”. This has proven more difficult than even Madison envisioned.

    It is impossible.

    Madison was a centralist and federalist. He wanted the US to be an empire in its own right, and found that as long as the States held the final power, empire would not or could not be built. You need to centralize power to make empires.

    He knew perfectly well that there is no restraint on power if the power of restraint is held by the same hands as the hands needing restraint.

    Further, if men are not angels, with (fallacious) argument requiring government, will not government – the centralization and expansion of violent power – be exactly the wrong structure to create for the devils of men? Will not the devils seize that very means of violence for their own purpose?

    Again, the founders were not of one mind. Jefferson fought vainly against such a structure – he saw the fallacy and the contradiction. He lost to Madison when Madison promised the Amendments. Jefferson was not fooled, but a number of delegates switched to Madison, believing the mere existence of the Amendments would suffice in the restraint of government.

    They may have been smart, but no man no matter how smart can foretell the future.

    However, we can learn from the past and know that government – in any form – is the most deadliest foe to mankind and civilization.

    As Lincoln said, ‘A house divided against itself can not stand.’”

    A house built on an evil and immoral foundation cannot stand.

    I trust the military to obey LAWFUL orders.

    The miliary must trust the political process to do the right thing. Anything else would be the beginning of the end

    But the orders are legal, but evil and immoral…. do you still obey?

    • BF, If I had received an order that was evil and immoral, common sense would tell me that it must be illegal. Can you provide an example of something evil and immoral that is legal (as far as a military order would be).

      • GMan: Once again I provide the example of Kent State, as perhaps the most readily available with regard to the question raised. Perhaps the military’s willing participation in disarming lawful, non-violent citizens in New Orleans would be another.


        • I can’t argue the Kent St. fiasco, but I credit that to poorly trained Ohio National Guard troops. New Orleans is a good example of what could happen if Civil unrest breaks out. Both are good examples of why the government should be limited in their actions. Kent St. troops are said to have acted out of fear for their safety, and New Orleans was just a bad decision, based on fear also. Acting on fear is not evil or immoral, sometimes it’s just a sad mistake.

        • You forget the fear factor in the Kent St tragedy. You state they were untrained. Untrained in police work, but trained to fight a war. When politicians decide to use National Guard troops to maintain peace, they always forget that soldiers are trained to kill – NOT maintain the peace. Put a soldier out in front of a mob, give him a loaded weapon, then let someone in that mob do or say something that that young soldier believes is a threat – and you expect him to do what? He is only trained to fight a war, NOT maintain the peace. The tragedy of Kent St belongs on the politicians who decided to use National Guard Troops to maintain the peace, not the confused and frightened soldiers who were thrust in front of an angry mob that refused to disperse even when faced with deadly force. I do not understand (even to this day) why everyone is so surprised at what happened at Kent St. What really amazes me is that it has not happened more often before or since.

          I know that my stance on this is not going to be very popular, but consider this – I am a retired Marine who has been in war and I am also an ex cop who has stood crowd control duty many times, and I know for a fact that the training for each is worlds apart. There have been times that during some crowd control situations that I have had to remove myself from that duty due to my military training was almost taking over. We in law enforcement label it “fight or flight syndrome” and it prevails in all of us humans. Our military training provides us with one solution, and police crowd control provides us with another solution, and the two do not mix very well.

          Sorry about being so long winded here, but I just did not want any misunderstanding on my stance on this part of the thread.

          • G.A. I agree with what you say, two totally different worlds, military and law enforcement. Those young troops who shot at Kent St. said they did not receive an order to fire, which removes that incident from the evil and immoral but legal arguement. I engaged in riot control against Cubans in Panama in 1994. We were armed with protective shields and night sticks, no guns. Could this be because of the history lesson at Kent St.

          • G.A.

            Let us hope for peaceful demonstrations. There have been more people at several “Tea parties” than attend the G20 protest. But our tea parties were peaceful. Hopefully also, we won’t be blaming troops for the governments screw-ups.

            • esomhillgazette says:

              Let us also pray no violence is started at the tea parties. That would really destroy the message we are trying to get across.

              Also, don’t want to give the MSM the chance to accuse us of Domestic Terrorism or some other bulldookey. Watch for “professional instigators” in the crowds.

              Not being paranoid either. They were known to be present at the G20 summit. That turned into a riot because of those types! After it was started they faded back into the crowd.

      • Black Flag says:

        Thanks, JAC – and ditto!

        “Legal” simply means it is a law.

        There are ample examples of law, though evil and immoral.

        Everyone seems to forget that everything Hitler did was legal.

        • One thing that Hitler did was … from Wikipedia … The term Hitler oath refers to the oaths of allegiance sworn by German Wehrmacht officers and soldiers as well as civil servants during the Third Reich between the years 1934 and 1945. The oath pledged personal loyalty to the person of Adolf Hitler in place of loyalty to the constitution.

        • Black Flag says:

          That changes nothing – we were talking “legal” – not loyalty.

      • How about the firing on US WWI vets by US Army when they attacked the Bonus Army?

  17. Black Flag: I fear you have used a modernized description of fascism which furhter helps to confuse the matter for our other readers. Namely it would lead most to think socialism and fascism could be the same. Using an older and simpler definition I would point out that while they are both statist, in one the govt controls the means of production and transport through use of the private sector (liberals call this “crony capitalism”, and the other results in government ownership of the means of production and transport.

    Furthermore, while you assigned the term fascist to the Repubs, both the Dems and Repubs have supported a fascist system up until now. The more precise questions should be whether the Dem party has finally decided to go with Socialism instead of Fascism? And, then whether the Repubs are going to denounce Fascism, once and for all, or continue to embrace its many nuanced forms?

    As you know, I believe that the federal power of our republican form of govt can be constrained in a manner consitent with the principle of individual liberty. I disagree that such a system is statist just because a central govt exists. The answer to this great question will lie in the powers our citizens are willing to give to the federal, state, local levels of govt. I offer that you may be correct in the end, but I am not yet willing to conceed that most men and women in this country really wish to be slaves. I therefore beleive they will wake up some day, soon I hope, and throw off the chains.

    Yours, the eternal optimist

    • Black Flag says:

      Good sir.

      As from my guest post:

      The American political system has been soft-core fascist for almost a century. Liberals love to call conservatives fascists.

      The problem is, the liberals are right.

      Of course, well-informed conservatives like to call liberals fascists, and they are correct, too.

      Everyone who believes in the efficiency of the so-called government-business alliance is a fascist.

      Most people do not understand the difference between fascism and Communism. Fascism: State-run capitalism.

      We are now seeing what hard-core liberals always predicted would happen: the economic convergence of the two systems, USA and USSR. The system of economic convergence is fascism. That was what the liberals always wanted, but called it something else: “economic democracy” or “the government-business alliance.”

      The log roll exists because both parties are convergent. There is no real difference between the two other than shirt colors and rhetoric.

      Your optimism does you service; I, too, am optimistic in that the system will fail.

      I do not believe, however, that most of the people will endeavor to be free of it.

      People are, by nature, herd animals. They move in groups, and are easily led by one who is charismatic. Reason and logic are rarely considered powerful traits of these charismatic leaders, simply because it takes way too much thinking, and time, to think in reason. 5 or less word sound bites and jingoisms work far better in elicting the instant-emotional response and those with reason can’t even get their mouths open before the masses have moved on.

      Though freedom is the goal, few want it. Those that seek it will find the path difficult.

      • I thought you correct the first time. That is why I commented on your use today. Thought you had become disoriented, should have known better.

        I must admit that after posts of late last week, the first thing that popped into my head with your log rolling example was “Sometimes a Great Notion” which of course was later renamed. Could be the first time I saw a man locking lips with another man on the big screen. I can still see Henry’s arm tied to that pole with his salute in plain view. Perhaps you should add that image to your Blag Flag!!

        You missed my new word….conceed….as in the opposite of succeed, as when used in reference to the inheretance of soveriegnty. I thought it was so clever and you probable thought it a typo.

        Hope your smilin now.

      • Flag,

        I also thought you were off on earlier fascist /right vs socialist/left. I think I’m a fiscal conservative like US. A Glenn Beck show had a chart ( I read pictures better than words )with total government control on the left, and no government at all on the right. (maybe US will ask Glenn to put a flag on the rt. side )

        So with all these different labels, it looks like we need a new one for those who want some government, just a whole lot less than today.
        Lets try something,

        total gov.——–a lot of gov.——damn little———–no gov.

        How about “Left of Flag” for a name?

        • USWeapon says:

          I like it LOI, I like it a lot. Damn little describes my goal to a tee.

        • Black Flag says:

          And from my POV, there is either government or no government.

          The “damn little” always goes to ‘a lot’ to ‘full-blown’. 10,000 years of experimentation, and every time – this is what happens.

          • USWeapon says:

            Ah but you are missing a point there BF. It never starts at damn little. It always starts at none. So we could go to “none” tomorrow and you would be ecstatic, but it would not be good and eventually that will go to “damn little” and then “a lot” and then “full blown”. We need a re-set every now and then and the part of “none” isn’t productive so I am re-setting to damn little. LOL

          • Black Flag says:

            It never has started at none since, oh, 10,000 years ago.

            The ones that tried have been overrun by government hordes like the Romans – or collapsed by global cooling, like Iceland.

            The success of government equals the success of violence – profit, good sir, profit is found in stealing.

            But the better you can mitigate the risk of dying – such as legitimizing the theft – even more the better!

            • USWeapon says:

              and perhaps none could have worked 10,000 years ago in a tribal and nomadic world. But even they chose to eventually form government. And no one since has bothered to revert back to that “none”. As I said, “none” won’t work so I will re-set to “damn little” or even “very damn little” if JAC will allow me to share his space.

              • Black Flag says:

                Simply due to the profit of violence – but you’ve heard that from me already.

                When violence becomes unprofitable, so will government

              • You would be most welcome sir, as would the Flag. In my world he would be so happy, still skeptical, but oh soooooooooooo happy.

        • LOI

          You way with my most sincere expression of gratitude, place me just left of the Flag, with the title “very damn little”.

          My sincerest thanks.

      • BF;

        “That was what the liberals always wanted, but called it something else: “economic democracy” or “the government-business alliance.””

        Isn’t this akin to what Ike warned us about? Seems to me that we didn’t listen very well, did we?

  18. Disgusted in Cali says:

    “The problem is that parents are not raising their children to respect others, to work hard for what they want, etc.” This is exactly the problem! If ALL parents raised their children to respect others and work hard for what they want, a huge chunk of the problems that exist today would disappear. Unfortunately their are those parents out there that place the blame on those around them for their circumstance and that is what their children learn, to blame others for their problems. Instead of trying to better themselves through hard work they look for the easy way out or how to get something for nothing. Welfare was never intended to become a life style but that is exactly what it has become. Why get a job when the government will take care of them? The illegal immigrants work the tedious jobs nobody likes to do. The field work & the factory piece work to name a few. If the immigration laws were enforced these jobs would be available. I worked in the carrot sheds while in high school more than a few seasons because I wanted to buy a car and it made me realize that I did not want to be doing that kind of work for the next 30 years, so I went to school, worked hard and learned a trade. Do I want to help people out of a difficult time in their lives? Yes! Damn right I do! Do I want to support these people the rest of their lives? No, get up off your butts and do something to better your situation or work in the sheds for 30 years…choice is yours.

    • USWeapon says:

      Great reply Disgusted. Once I get home this evening I will post a cartoon that I saw about teaching our kids to take no responsibility. It is quite accurate.

    • Black Flag says:

      By creating moral hazards, the government ensures that more people depend on government.

      Review your own lifestyle and take an accounting of how much you depend on government – before you condemn those that may be merely more visible in their needs.

      This is planned.

      The more and broader the government is, the harder it is to change. Any change damages some segment of population so that politically, nothing changes and always grows.

  19. -Thomas Jefferson

    He, who governs least, governs best. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. I think our founding fathers were well aware of the corruption that having a tyranny government could cause and therefore, implemented the Bill of Rights(Amendments).

    • Black Flag says:

      …and those did the trick!…

      Opps… guess not.

    • Nubian,

      A good quote & relevant. Don’t mind Flag, he’s been a pain to deal with since he lost the lead in the 5th grade play.

    • Black Flag says:

      I vaguely remember grade 5.

      But, really, what did the Constitution and Amendments do?

      Answer: Nothing, except make for excellent coffee table debates.

      • Not so, good sir. You would be drinking tea for your debates. And drinking WARM BEER. Surely that was worth fighting for!

      • Black Flag says:

        The fight was not for Constitution, but for freedom – and Independence.

        Sadly, we substituted the former for the latter and ended up with essentially the same thing, PLUS weak beer and a strange version of soccer where massive men carry pigskins and crash into each other, called – weirdly – football.

  20. Black Flag says:

    “Civil Disobedience” is an analysis of the individual’s relationship to the state that focuses on why men obey governmental law even when they believe it to be unjust.

    But “Civil Disobedience” is not an essay of abstract theory. It is Thoreau’s extremely personal response to being imprisoned for breaking the law. Because he detested slavery and because tax revenues contributed to the support of it, Thoreau decided to become a tax rebel. There were no income taxes and Thoreau did not own enough land to worry about property taxes; but there was the hated poll tax – a capital tax levied equally on all adults within a community.

    Thoreau declined to pay the tax and so, in July 1846, he was arrested and jailed. He was supposed to remain in jail until a fine was paid which he also declined to pay. Without his knowledge or consent, however, relatives settled the “debt” and a disgruntled Thoreau was released after only one night. The incarceration may have been brief but it has had enduring effects through “Civil Disobedience.” To understand why the essay has exerted such powerful force over time, it is necessary to examine both Thoreau the man and the circumstances of his arrest.

    More Thoreau’s and the government will fall. Nothing threatens government then those who in a peaceful, civilized, manner disobey the government and refuse to pay tax.

  21. Black Flag says:

    Thoreau –

    I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

    Bet you can tell, I like Thoreau 8)

  22. Entertainment.

    Here we go marching to Mars
    On a rainbow bridge
    It doesn’t seem so far
    Stepping into our universe
    Moving towards life
    To solve the problems on earth

    Everybody’s marching to mars
    Gonna settle down there
    Get me a house and car (Obama campaign promise?)
    Save each other from ourselves
    Poke our heads out of the sand
    Sayin’ here I am

    Hollywood’s marching to mars ( now that’s true )
    For a grand new movie
    With some brand new stars
    Plastered on the silver screen
    Gonna bring it on home
    So you won’t have to leave

    Parts of Marching to Mars, Sammy Hagar

  23. Black Flag says:

    And the left/right – fascist/socialist hierarchy – I like Kent’s concept.

    Instead of left/right, it is on which side of Apathy do you sit?

  24. I received this bit of info through a friend. Does anyone know about this? Real or not?
    The H.R. 1388 Bill which passed the house has now officially passed the Senate by a 74-14 vote

    (b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:

    (5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

    (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

    (12) H.Amdt. 49 by Rep. Miller [D-CA]

    Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing.
    Proposed: Mar 18, 2009. Accepted: Mar 18, 2009.

    • USWeapon says:

      I did an article on this a week or two ago. Scroll down to the Brownshirts article.

      • Okay. Now I’ve got another question.

        While Obama was in Europe, a man came into our store and said earlier he had been on Tellico Mountain in Tennessee and had witnessed at least 20 black hummers swarming the area. He swore they were NATO. He said he approached one of them and asked where they were headed…they replied they could not give that information. If Obama had not praised NATO while in Europe…I wouldn’t be so concerned.

        You know…what’s a person to do? You run to the hills to get away from Europe and dang if they don’t follow you!

        • Pat,

          Are you serious, I mean REALLY serious?

          If you are, then give me the nearest Longitude and Latitude. I want to look at that area on Google Earth!

          • Absolutely serious. So much so, we’ve bought more guns and ammo…so has the entire area. “Mountain people” don’t like intrusion…and they don’t like, nor trust O.
            Maybe NATO thought they could sneak in….don’t think so.

            Tellico Mtn has been in the news the past year concerning closing down it’s trails for 4 wheelers. Environmentalist….say they are tearing up the terrain.
            Odd, we thought…what’s all the hub bub? This is the mountains for crying out loud.

            Then, like I said, this man came in and told us about the NATO hummers. He called it a fleet of at least 20.

            If you google Tellico Mtns in Tennessee….you’ll see the area.

            I live in Murphy, NC. Moved here from Florida and will not budge again. When crap hits the fan…we’re like Ted Nuggent…don’t show up unannounced.

          • You know what Rowe…of course there are recreational 4 wheelers here, but the majority of people using 4 wheelers are “hunters”.

            If NATO is considering this area for “camps”…then they certainly would not want “hunters” around.

            It is a strange connection…the state working on closing Tellico, then suddenly NATO shows up.

  25. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi Pat,

    Read US Weapon’s (along with Postings) Article on this at


  26. Black Flag says:

    Why Freedom Will Prosper

    This is an 1936 essay by Albert J. Nock, called “Isaiah’s Job.”

    (edited for brevity)

    One evening last autumn, I sat with a an acquaintance while he expounded a political-economic doctrine which seemed sound as a nut and in which I could find no defect.

    At the end, he said with great earnestness: “I have a mission to the masses. I feel that I am called to get the ear of the people. I shall devote the rest of my life to spreading my doctrine far and wide among the population. What do you think?”

    An embarrassing question in any case, and doubly so under the circumstances, because my acquaintance is a very learned man, one of the three or four really first-class minds in his generation; and naturally I, as one of the unlearned, was inclined to regard his lightest word with reverence amounting to awe.

    Still, I reflected, even the greatest mind can not possibly know everything, and I was pretty sure he had not had my opportunities for observing the masses of mankind, and that therefore I probably knew them better than he did.

    So I mustered courage to say that he had no such mission and would do well to get the idea out of his head at once; he would find that the masses would not care two pins for his doctrine, and still less for himself.

    He smiled at my jest, and asked what I meant by it; and I referred him to the story of the prophet Isaiah.

    It occurred to me then that this story is much worth recalling just now when so many wise men and soothsayers appear to be burdened with a message to the masses.

    I shall paraphrase the story in our common speech, since it has to be pieced out from various sources.

    The prophet’s career began at the end of King Uzziah’s reign, say about 740 B.C. This reign was uncommonly long, almost half a century, and apparently prosperous. It was one of those prosperous reigns, however — like the reign of Marcus Aurelius at Rome, or the administration of Eubulus at Athens, or of Mr. Coolidge at Washington — where at the end the prosperity suddenly peters out and things go by the board with a resounding crash.

    In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are.”

    He said, “Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them.

    I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”

    Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job — in fact, he had asked for it — but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so — if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start — was there any sense in starting it?

    “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.”

    Isaiah seems finally to have got it through his head that this was the case; that nothing was to be expected from the masses, but that if anything substantial were ever to be done, the Remnant would have to do it.

    This is a very striking and suggestive idea; but before going on to explore it, we need to be quite clear about our terms. What do we mean by the masses, and what by the Remnant?

    As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, labouring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority.

    The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses.

    The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them.

    The masses are those who are unable to do either.

    The mass-man — be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper — gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak-minded and weak-willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass-woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass-man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible.

    The mass-man must have been a most objectionable individual, and the mass-woman utterly odious.

    Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts.

    Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character — too small to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.

    This view of the masses is the one that we find prevailing at large among the ancient authorities whose writings have come down to us.

    In the eighteenth century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass-man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest.

    If only his environment permitted him to live according to his lights, he would undoubtedly show himself to be quite a fellow; and the best way to secure a more favourable environment for him would be to let him arrange it for himself.

    On this side of the ocean a whole new continent stood ready for a large-scale experiment with this theory. It afforded every conceivable resource whereby the masses might develop a civilization made in their own likeness and after their own image.

    There was no force of tradition to disturb them in their preponderance, or to check them in a thoroughgoing disparagement of the Remnant. Immense natural wealth, unquestioned predominance, virtual isolation, freedom from external interference and the fear of it, and, finally, a century and a half of time — such are the advantages which the mass-man has had in bringing forth a civilization which should set the earlier preachers and philosophers at naught in their belief that nothing substantial can be expected from the masses, but only from the Remnant.

    His success is unimpressive. On the evidence so far presented one must say, I think, that the mass-man’s conception of what life has to offer, and his choice of what to ask from life, seem now to be pretty well what they were in the times of Isaiah and Plato; and so too seem the catastrophic social conflicts and convulsions in which his views of life and his demands on life involve him.

    Observe that the monstrously inflated importance of the masses has apparently put all thought of a possible mission to the Remnant out of the modern prophet’s head.

    But without following up this suggestion, I wish only, as I said, to remark the fact that as things now stand Isaiah’s job seems rather to go begging. Everyone with a message nowadays is eager to take it to the masses.

    His first, last and only thought is of mass-acceptance and mass-approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses’ attention and interest.

    This attitude towards the masses is so exclusive, so devout, trying obsequiously to placate it and win its favour, trying to interpret its inarticulate noises, trying to find out what it wants, and eagerly offering it all sorts of things that they think might strike its fancy.

    The main trouble with all this is its reaction upon the mission itself. It necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one’s doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo.

    Meanwhile, the Remnant, aware of this adulteration and of the desires that prompt it, turn their backs on the prophet and will have nothing to do with him or his message.

    Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly.

    Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not.

    As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favour, and answerable only to his august Boss.

    The Remnant want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about. The prophet of the American masses must aim consciously at the lowest common denominator of intellect, taste and character among 300,000,000 people; and this is a distressing task.

    The prophet of the Remnant, on the contrary, is in the enviable position of forking out the very best knowing it would be understood and appreciated by those for whom he produced it, and caring not a button what anyone else thought of it; and that makes a good job.

    In a sense, nevertheless, as I have said, it is not a rewarding job. If you can tough the fancy of the masses, and have the sagacity to keep always one jump ahead of their vagaries and vacillations, you can get good returns in money from serving the masses, and good returns also in a mouth-to-ear type of notoriety:

    Digito monstrari et dicier, Hic est!
    O but it is a fine thing to have a finger pointed at one, and to hear people say, “That’s the man!”

    We all know innumerable politicians, journalists, dramatists, novelists and the like, who have done extremely well by themselves in these ways.

    Taking care of the Remnant, on the contrary, holds little promise of any such rewards. A prophet of the Remnant will not grow purse-proud on the financial returns from his work, nor is it likely that he will get any great renown out of it.

    What chiefly makes it so, I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity.

    You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those — dead sure, as our phrase is — but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.

    Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade.

    When the historian of two thousand years hence, or two hundred years, looks over the available testimony to the quality of our civilization and tries to get any kind of clear, competent evidence concerning the substratum of right-thinking and well-doing which he knows must have been here, he will have a devil of a time finding it.

    When he has assembled all he can and has made even a minimum allowance for speciousness, vagueness, and confusion of motive, he will sadly acknowledge that his net result is simply nothing.

    A Remnant were here, building a substratum like coral insects; so much he knows, but he will find nothing to put him on the track of who and where and how many they were and what their work was like.

    The other certainty which the prophet of the Remnant may always have is that the Remnant will find him. He may rely on that with absolute assurance. They will find him without his doing anything about it; in fact, if he tries to do anything about it, he is pretty sure to put them off. He does not need to advertise for them nor resort to any schemes of publicity to get their attention.

    He may be quite sure that the Remnant will make their own way to him without any adventitious aids; and not only so, but if they find him employing any such aids, as I said, it is ten to one that they will smell a rat in them and will sheer off.

    The certainty that the Remnant will find him, however, leaves the prophet as much in the dark as ever, as helpless as ever in the matter of putting any estimate of any kind upon the Remnant; for he remains ignorant of who they are that have found him or where they are or how many.

    They did not write in and tell him about it, after the manner of those who admire the vedettes of Hollywood, nor yet do they seek him out and attach themselves to his person. They are not that kind. They take his message much as drivers take the directions on a roadside signboard — that is, with very little thought about the signboard, beyond being gratefully glad that it happened to be there, but with every thought about the directions.

    Such instances as these are probably not infrequent, for, without presuming to enroll ourselves among the Remnant, we can all no doubt remember having found ourselves suddenly under the influence of an idea, the source of which we cannot possibly identify. “It came to us afterward,” as we say; that is, we are aware of it only after it has shot up full-grown in our minds, leaving us quite ignorant of how and when and by what agency it was planted there and left to germinate. It seems highly probable that the prophet’s message often takes some such course with the Remnant.

    Hence a few of those who feel the prophetic afflatus might do better to apply themselves to serving the Remnant. It is a good job, an interesting job, much more interesting than serving the masses; and moreover it is the only job in our whole civilization, as far as I know, that has the possibility of saving civilization.

  27. So I’m assuming that all of you true-blue anti-“Socialists” are tearing up your Medicare and Social Security cards, refusing to take “tainted” money from the “socialists” in Washington? Get a life, people. Now that “liberal” is no longer seen as a dirty label, you’ve moved on to “socialist” — and it’s just not sticking.

    Evan Adamson

    • Sadly, those of us that work for a living pay into Social Security and Medicare. Therefore, those programs are not handouts to the working class Americans. I, personnally, don’t ask for or need money from any government, unlike the welfare rats who live off of my tax dollars. I am not associated with any political party, I’m not a Liberal nor a conservative, I am an American, who in fact can make decisions without the help of large numbers of people telling each other what to think and believe.

      I respect the people on this site, because they respect one another, despite their different opinions, be it liberal or conservative. I, sir, have come to like these folks because of that. They are open-minded and willing to listen to one another, and rarely offer indignation. I have learned much from these folks, based on your post, I doubt you could handle an honest debate with any of them.

      Evan, Have a great evening!


    • esomhillgazette says:

      Most of us “true blue anti-socialists work for a living. And having a SS card is a necessity to have that job. I agree totally with G-Man on this. Want to hang with us? You are most certainly welcome to I am sure. By the way, Good evenin’, G!

      • Good evening to you as well, Esom! May tomorrow find you healthy and happy. I’d buy you a beer if I could!


      • esomhillgazette says:

        Oh, and by the way Evan! Yes! It is sticking! Especially to Obamatons! LMAO!!!

    • Do you disagree that we’re headed to Socialism? If you do, then let’s hear the argument, not just snippy defensive sounding remarks. It’s not about labels……’s about the erosion of personal freedoms and individual liberties.

      Re SS and Medicare……….I think you just proved the point made in the story in Comment # 15 above.

    • Somebody help this internet blogging newby. Is this one of those trolling people someone referred to a couple of posts ago???

      • I think your right, but I hope he hangs around and engages in debate. That would be interesting!


      • USWeapon says:

        I believe sir, that he is in fact a troll. Or troller, or whatever they are called. He claims to be Evan Adamson, but I have my doubts that a published author of a book extolling the corruptness of government would make the comments that he makes or in the way that he makes them. My guess is that he is someone who wishes he was Evan Adamson.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          Believe he was a hit and run blogger US. He came on once yesterday too I noticed

    • USWeapon says:


      We won’t have to tear those cards up. Your administration will bankrupt us long before that payout happens. Are you interested in debating your points of view or simply a liberal bomb-thrower, jumping in throwing a few comments, telling anyone who doesn’t share your point of view that they need to get a life, and running? Cause I am willing to debate the merits of of your side, especially if you have written a liberal book. Nothing makes me giddy like another chance to tear up a liberal “intellectual”. Funny if socialist isn’t sticking then what are you worried about? Besides I don’t use it as a slanderous term, I use it because it is an accurate description of what we are seeing. Dude, seriously, you wrote a book?

      • TexasChem says:

        So then US, you agree the current spending craze and budget madness of Obamas will bankrupt our nation if left unfettered?
        Wouldn’t this destroy our nation?
        Would their be civil unrest?
        If so why in the world would this man do that to a nation he took an “oath” to defend?
        Wouldn’t someone have to step in and take “control” to fix America?
        Would that person that stepped in need a well supplied civil defense force just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as our military to accomplish this feat?
        By no means am I implying some devilish conspiracy theory here but the things Obama says in his speeches are just plain twilight zone creepy.
        Those speeches coupled with his statement to cut back the US military by 25% along with nuke disarmament have me a bit worried.I read a U.S. Department of Home Security Assesment the other day that really freaked me out.Titled “Rightwing Extremism:Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”
        Heres a link to the story and there is a link to the Assesment as well contained in the story where you can read for yourselves the assesment.

        • TC,

          I have the entire report. Downloaded it and can forward it to anyone who wants to send me their e-mail address. I guess that we are all “radical extremists” now, under the watchful eye of our former governor here in AZ, one Janet “from another planet” Napolitano.

          USW – would you like me to send that report to you? Believe me, it is an eye opener and a half!

    • esomhillgazette says:

      I read the preamble to your book:

      “Is the White House for sale?
      Can one man with unlimited financial resources – and the willingness to destroy anyone who stands in his way – buy himself the ultimate seat of power? With chilling plausibility, TAKEOVER, the explosive new novel from Adam Evanson, demonstrates how vulnerable American government may be to big money.”

      Hey! I agree Evan! After all, it worked for Obama, Why not someone else? With friends like the Unions and ACORN in your pocket, anythings possible!!!

  28. WOW! With these kinds of responses I would only be redundant with my ethos. However, I am the person who struggles with labels…as I believe Ddk stated as “stereotyping” and USW referred to as “categorizing.”

    It is precisely this kind of labeling that sets the agenda for this type of writing and/or philosophical treatise. I mean no disrespect; however, these topics are great conversation starters! As for me…as I was reading the last hour or so, I just doodled and I’d like to share this with you folks.

    I perceive conservative as being a behavior that is influenced by an individual’s belief system. By belief system I mean ‘whatever’ an individual believes in, and therefore exemplifies those qualities in life. Being conservative has the personality traits of being traditional, and is often times characterized by those who are given to conventional or tried and true ways. The conservative believes there is a place in every culture for tradition.

    This certainly does not imply that a conservative person will display the outward behavior of a conformist or is not ambitious; being conservative is cautiously speculative and respects the morals, values, and ethics and the true manner of law.

    Interestingly a conservative’s behavior does not avoid change; however, conservatives are in fact, against abrupt change that is not critically thought out. Conservative behavior on change is that of doing due-diligence, exhausting all available means of prudence before making well-informed decisions.

    It is the decision-making process that perhaps implies conservatives as nonconforming and old fashioned conventionalists, who simply will not conform to anything. Conservative individuals prefer to have has much material, input from others, and literally a force field analysis to make reasonably well-defined decisions for themselves, and therefore, society.

    For everyone who made comments about “Parents of Today’s Youth” where do they fit on the continuum of labels?

    Discipline seems to have come up a lot! Has there been changes to methods, means, and motives of discipline?

    When discipline, education, parenting, and societal standards begin to wane, where does this conservative fit in?

    Enjoyed this post tremendously,


    • Jon, Good post. I was born and live in a very liberal, Democrat run region of Northeast Ohio. One would probably ask why I frequent this site, because it’s mainly conservatives with a few liberals sprinkled in. I’m, in my opinion, neither. I do believe in tradition, and I also believe in change, when something is broken, or breaking. Our government, as a whole, has been broken for decades, thus it needs changed, and I don’t mean which political party has control. It needs torn apart and rebuilt, like an old 400 cid mopar engine. Can you help?

  29. Fred, older-than-dirt says:

    I normally do not reply in blogs, as for the most part I think that they are a waste of time.

    First I did my bit to preserve, protect and defend, even tho my military obligation was finished. I had to re-enlist to do that.

    Next I am not a lawyer.

    I think, according to the definitions of US that I am both a Fiscal Conservative an a Paleo Conservative. A paleo because if you do not know where you came from, how can you plot a course as to where you are going. Read as Family Tree, my father tended to bad mouth my grandfather on my mothers side. He spent close 2 years in Leavenworth Prison for bad mouthing the Red Cross and for tell young men not to volunteer for the army during
    W W I. Did not say to refuse to serve if drafted,just do not volunteer.

    Would not have known this without doing Family Tree.

    The Supreme Court Says its function is to Interpret the Constitution.I submit that they are being intellectually dishonest. There is a concept that says that a law that needs to be Interpreted is void for vagueness. Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the and it cannot be vague.

    In reality The function of the Supreme Court is to enforce the Constitution. See Article 3 and Article 1 Section 8.

    • Fred, I wish the Supreme Court could honor their job duties as well. Glad to hear from you!

      PEACE! G!

    • USWeapon says:

      Welcome Fred. I hope that you will continue to reply in the future, as this was a great first one! I have to agree with your assessment.

    • Fred,
      I very much enjoyed your post. I was aware of some of those events, but hearing it from someone with personal perspective just seems more real.

  30. Hate to tell you but the direction O is taking you has a maple leaf on the flag but he can’t possibly succeed for one shining reason. Our liberals are infinitely more financially conservative than yours. They’ve never pressured the banks into loaning money to those who can’t afford to pay the damned stuff back and no one on any side here will laud everyone as “deserving” a house. I near choked when O’s last lending TV episode mentioned making sure the banks weren’t withholding loans from his idea of “deserving” families. That word is going to kill the American dream.

    Of course we count Quebec as being another country altogether as they indeed do have the terminal social disease deservitous. O has to realize that’s not one you can prevent with a condom but with abstinence and its very much a way-of-life threatening illness.

    • Alan: you in BC or Alberta?? I’m still pulling for reinstating the Northwest Territory as a new country. Oh shit….there goes any chance I had of running for Vice Pres with USW.

      Send some warm air down this way would you?
      Best from the west

  31. I agree that this country is moving towards Socialism. The signs are all there. Buying out the auto industry, the banking system, the housing market.

    Now, let’s look at that closer.

    The government now can fire executives of major corporations. GM for example. They can also tell them to file bankruptcy, also GM. Next they will be telling the auto makers what kinds of cars they can make. Oh wait…

    The government controls the banks, tells them they can or cannot give out bonuses. This whole fiasco of the bonuses was just a ploy to incite the anger of americans to back the government more. Did the billions sent overseas to foreign banks get any coverage like the small amount of bonuses? Nope. I do believe billions are more than millions, correct me if I’m wrong on that. So now, the government tells the banks they have to lend, they have to make it easier for people to get loans. Isn’t this what caused the crisis in the first place? Easy loans, loans to people who did not have the money to pay them back.

    Next, housing market. They control the banks, so your loans will be backed by the government. Not only that but the government bought out billions of dollars in bad loans, billions in assets from these banks. So, the house you now own, may in fact not be bank backed, but in fact be owned by the government. And what are they doing with these assets? I have not seen this published.

    The point I am making, my friends, is that, if we’re a capitalist nation. Show me how. How is it that we have free markets? These are not free markets. The government now owns a large portion of the markets. So now, if you have the dream of creating your own company, and growing it into a large corporation, you have the government to fear. Now, if you buy a car, you have to wonder if the government is the one who made the car. If you buy a house, is it indeed owned by the government?

    So how is it that we have come this far, yet there isn’t a huge outcry? Fear. Fear is the number one asset the government has to control your opinions. Fear of a depression spurred us into letting them take over the auto, banking and housing markets.

    Now compare this fear with that of what Adolf Hitler used. It is widely agreed that Hitler used fear to incite Germany in backing his assault on Poland. How did he do this? He fragged his own reichstag and blamed it on the Polish. They even used a mentally handicap German boy as a scape goat, dressed in a polish uniform.

    This is the same type of fear mongoring that Hitler used, and countless other officials throughout history. It is just being used in a different way.

    Socialism is here. So is the New World Order. And yet, here we few sit, aware, but shocked as the rest of the country seems lulled into passiveness.

    So what do we do? Ideas?

    What do you think is next?

    I know what I think is next. Here goes.

    Obama will not try gun control right now. It is too soon, and people will awaken too fast for this. As USWeapon had noted before in another post. They are implimenting the whole ‘brown shirt brigades’. This is guised as voluntary service to America. Keeping America strong. But, what is not visible, and is trying to be hidden is the fact that it does try to create a larger Army. A second Army. For what?

    The whole plan, I think, of this is to instill a pride in our country, so strong, so unbreakable that we lose our wisdom, our inhibition, our judgement. “Why question our ‘savior’ since has united us so amazingly?” They will ask. “Obama knows best.” Sure. This will cause mass blindness, and then all hell breaks loose. It is at this time that gun rights will be gone. It is at this time that the bill of rights will be drastically, if not completely redone. Our freedoms will be sacrificed.

    Now, this is just speculation upon my part, and I would love to hear what you all think would be next on the agenda.

    As I’m new to this site, I’d like to say that I really enjoy reading the posts and the comments of you all. I take into consideration that I am young, possibly a lot younger than most here. But, as a former soldier myself, I take great pride in my country, and I also plan to protect her from the threats within and without.

    I’m a little more aware of the political scene at my age, compared to others my age, for I have seen a lot of disturbing things in the media these days, and have been tracking what I knew was not right. The socialist movement. Again, thanks for an interesting conversation. It has been truly stimulating.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Welcome to the site Jake! You bring up some interesting points to ponder on.

      • Thank you! I hope to add a little insightful input into this 😉 as I know that you all have done yourselves, a very intriguing site indeed. Makes you stop and think about all the things that are going on around you. Like a giant game of chess, you must see what has been moved so far, and what may be moved into place in the future. Think 3 steps ahead!

    • TexasChem says:

      It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. -Joseph Stalin

      I believe the next thing on Obamas agenda is legalizing the illegals in this country in order to recieve their votes in upcoming elections and using ACORN volunteers to insure vistory.

    • Next move? Cuba as the 51st state! Hooray! Alright I’m just kidding, but I am pretty sure that health care is the next move which comes with a whole host of trouble. I truly believe that the health care system is in dire need of reform, but I do not think that government control is the answer. As a person who has not had any health insurance for the last 13 years (gasp), I am one of the masses that Obama believes he became president to protect. However from what I know of health care from the outside I am happy I have not been paying premiums for over a decade. The examples are numerous. My younger brother has state insurance for a seizure condition. He needed a refill for his medication and under the state rules he had to go to the emergency room on Easter Sunday to qualify for the prescription. Unquestionably too expensive. My mother worked for one of the major health providers in our state. According to her, as an uninsured person, if I seek medical treatment I am billed 45% of the normal rates. But the network she worked for had a deal with an insurance company that they only had to pay 10% as they guaranteed payment.

      In short the problem lies in the pricing structure. When insurance companies find it cheaper to send a patient to India for routine knee surgery something is wrong. All I want is a sandwich board pricing structure where if I walk into an emergency room with a broken arm I can know that I will pay $300 for treatment (or whatever it happens to be adjusted for income… oops that sounded kind of socialist). Nonetheless, health care issues have become akin to government contract issues, much like the hammer that costs $1000 for a contractor, it need not put me into medical bankruptcy in order to be treated an ailment that happens to put me in the hospital for 10 days after an ambulance ride. Sadly, Obama doesn’t see it that way. Health care is destined to become the bureaucratic mess government contracts have been. Alas!

      • Ddk,

        I believe you are on the right track. Healthcare reform is definitely something I see Obama changing. And again, I think you are on the right trick when you mentioned an inflated cost for a certain type of injury/illness based upon income. Designed to be class equal. But class equality isn’t what this country is about. I’m not going to bust my butt working hard, advancing up the ranks in my company to only end up having the same amount of money as the guy scrubbing the floors in the bathroom. Would you? Doubt it.

        This country is about the reward for working hard. I’m only 25 years old, yet I’ve worked some of the hardest and crappiest jobs around, kept my head up, and now I’ve got a good paying job, and a bright future with a good company. All based upon my willingness to succeed, my intelligence and my work ethic. I wouldn’t be doing this if I wasn’t rewarded for it. That’s the american dream right there in its primitive form. Working hard to create that life that we all want. It varies from person to person, but we all have our dreams. Some of us a big house, nice cars, well paying job, kids running around and no financial worries. Some of us larger. Millionaires…billionaires. Some of us smaller, just a simple quite life.

        No matter what that dream is, you have the freedom to go for it, the freedom to want it and the RIGHT to have it. It’s only up to you if you get there or not.

        Now if socialism steps in, those dreasm will be destroyed. There will be ‘fairness’ as Obama calls it. The wealthy pay for the poor to ‘redistribute the wealth’ as I have heard him say time and time again. This is socialism outright.

        Redistribution of wealth. Before you know it, we will all drive the same car. We will all live in the same size and price ranged house. We will have assigned jobs. We will be allowed a certain amount of children. We will all have assigned hospitals that we may visit for our needs. Think of where this is going. It’s frightening.

        • Jake:

          Magnificent post! Very well-thought out with the ease of reading that was fun!

          There is one particular notion that I need to mention…to everyone…socialism is one thing; my fears are that what these people are doing to the Nation are far more Communist than Socialist.

          Ideas, suggestions, comments?

          Welcome aboard Fred! Thanks for the compliment G-man!!


      • Ddk,
        You have made some interesting points. May I suggest we look at:
        1. What works
        2. What does not work
        This is where I argue for more state level control. Example, Hawaii, which canceled their total state child health program after only seven months. It did not work.

        I have not looked to see if any state has a successful program. I do know of some of the abuses. People without insurance and EMPLOYMENT will use the ER for minor illnesses without ant thought.
        Its free to them. Which is why you and I pay two to three times what our treatment should cost.
        Seems idiotic, if someone is living on assisted living with kids, why not a voucher program for Dr. visits to keep them out of the ER?

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Jake,


      In regards to 2nd Amendment. Please note that on 60-Minutes (This past Sunday night), there was a segment on the “Gun Show Loophole”; Philip Van Cleeve from the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League (I’m located in VA and receive his emails) walked Leslie Stahl through a recent Gun Show here in Richmond.

      The most disturbing portion of this segment was an interview with Diane Badstein (oops, I meant Feinstein). Anyway, she talks about addressing the Automatic Weapon Ban. In her interview, she very arrogantly stated that she would sponsor the bill again, but when the time was right. I am not joking….you could actually see the arrogance and manipulation on her face….It was quite alarming to me….I wanted to reach out and pinch her out of her euphoria!


    • DdK and Jake:

      Look how easily we slip into the assumption that some broad based federal level “reform” is required. Medical rates based on income brackets? Are you kidding? Black Flag has made the point and it applies here. One form of govt leads to another or in this case regulation leads to regulation, on and on.

      Are health care costs outrageous. For the most part but not all parts. Perhaps more of the problem is how the insurance industry works. Maybe it is time for a new insurance company with a different business model? Anyone up for it?

      For the umpteenth time I give you the example of the Doctor in my town who stopped taking Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP and Insurance patients. Cash only………………He cut medical costs by 50%. Thats 50% …………….. That fact right there should tell us tons about where the problems lie. Suddenly his poor medicare patient could afford the doc visit at $25 instead of $50 or more.

      Perhaps Govt should stop protecting Pharma from Canadian drugs that are cheaper, or generics in this country.

      Perhaps we should stop running to the doctor everytime we get a sore throat or our kid gets a fever. And Docs should stop prescribing antibiotics for every cough or sore throat….just because the parent wants it.

      We do not have enought General Practioners in the US to meet demand. Maybe the med schools and the AMA should stop trying to create a guild protection program and focus on getting GP’s out the door.

      Our state just tried to require insurance companies to pay up to $75000 per year for intensive therapy for children with autism. Now what effect do you think that will have on insurance premiums, esp in a state with less than a million people?

      And perhaps the most cold hearted fact of all….This whole problem will self correct in 20 years, when most of us baby boomers finally die and stop putting such a burden on the medical system. Maybe the next generation won’t be looking for some pill for everything.

      Just some rambling thoughts this AM

  32. The hysteria over “socialism” is … hysterical! This was the alarm cry back in the 1930s, only then it was called “creeping socialism.” Obama wants to raise taxes on the richest Americans by 3% — socialism! He wants to partner with private industry to create alternative fuels — socialism! Energy independence — socialism! Investment in education — socialism! He even wants healthcare coverage for all Americans — socialism! No, worse, it’s communism!

    Hey, I understand your fears. The thought of universal healthcare coverage, independence from the Saudis, and schools that are competitive with the rest of the world — scary stuff!

    Evan Adamson

    • Mr. Adamson

      I do not see hysteria from anyone on this site. You obviously have not read many if any of the posts on this site.

      If humans are to survive they must have a firm grip on reality. Most of us here do not want our current system to continue nor do we want the socialism that is in fact beginning to take hold. We want individal liberty and envisioned and promised on our Constitution. Do you think our Constitution is unreasonable in that regard????

      Now for some reality:

      Capitalism: Trade among free men without govt interferance, except for laws to put liars, cheats and thieves in jail (or at least fine them).

      Fascism: Govt control of the means of production and transport through the use of the private sector. THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE BEEN FOR PAST 100 YEARS, MOVING FROM SOME TO ALOT.


      Health care without interferance=Capitalism
      Private health care insurance coverage required by the federal govt= fascism
      Govt operated medical facilities = socialism

      You see it is not hysteria it is what is on the table. Put there by those folks you obviously support or at least seem to with your rhetoric.

      I find your style quite interesting. Create a contentious argument accusing the other side of paranoia to create the allusion that whatever they think is irrational, thus supporting your unstated position that what they beleive is false and yours is true. I especially like the trick of inserting neutral terms with socialist agenda to make it seem our concerns are unfounded, such as “investment” in education—socialism. NICE TRICK!!!! As you see, increased investment in private education would not be socialism, now would it!!! Creating alternative fuels through free market=not socialism, energy independence through increased supplies and expanding new sources=not socialism. I am beginning to believe that progressives and the current Dem. party leaders should be called magicians….not liberals.




      Time to put up or shut up, play em or fold em, or one of those other cute sayings.


      • Richmond Spitfire says:


        You are my hero!


      • esomhillgazette says:

        JAC, ain’t no use. That Jackass won’t respond. I went to “His” site to look at his book. Money Bad!! Economic Equality (everybody equally poor) Good!! Obama the Buttkisser God!!!

      • He’s a troll, that’s all there is to it. Has not substatial argument. Just wants to come on here, insult people and their opinions to get everyone riled up. Some ignorant fool that doesn’t have the IQ it takes to converse with intelligent people.


    We found this article after getting skiddish about seeing NATO up here:

    HR 645 IH

    111th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 645

    To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.


    January 22, 2009

    Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


    A BILL

    To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the ‘National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.


    (a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

    (b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure–

    (1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

    (2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;

    (3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and

    (4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.


    (a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.

    (b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be–

    (1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;

    (2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;

    (3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;

    (4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;

    (5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;

    (6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:

    (A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and

    (B) the other shall be used daily for training; and

    (7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.

    (c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:

    (1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.

    (2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.

    (3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.

    (4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.

    (5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.

    (6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.

    (d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.

    (e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.

    (f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.

    (g) Reports-

    (1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

    (A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;

    (B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;

    (C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;

    (D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and

    (E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).

    (2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

    (A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);

    (B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

    (C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

    (D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

    (3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

    (A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

    (B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

    (C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

    (4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.


    This Act does not affect–

    (1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or

    (2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.


    There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.


    In this Act, the following definitions apply:

    (1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘closed military installation’ means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:

    (A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.

    (B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.

    (C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.

    (2) EMERGENCY- The term ‘emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

    (3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term ‘major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

    (4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘military installation’ has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

    • PAT:

      I would be interested in knowing how your friends concluded the black humvees were NATO!!

      Regarding the legislation: This is a GOOD idea but an example of bad law. Congress increasingly writes prescriptive law instead of directions. All this had to say was the secretary is authorized to use existing facilities and is directed to work with states and other federal agencies to identify those facilities that would perform the neeeded function. Report back on what you find in xxx days.

      We have been using military installations in this manner, I remind everyone of RITA evacuation.
      This is starting to look like a way for Congressmen to push pork back into districts to replace pork lost when bases were closed.



      • True enough. Seeing we don’t have local tv…we’re in the dark.

        But…there was no reason for the man to lie.
        If so…why NATO? As far as I know…they don’t do scenic tours.

        • Pat: As I understand it, there are foreign troops and commanders conducting joint training with US counterparts on US soil, all the time. As we train on their soil.

          I just doubt that black humvees were NATO. Sounds more like Blackwater, or secret servie or ATF, or the like. I do not dispute that the vehicles were there. I spent 19 years in an area where the famous “black helicopters” were frequently seen. And they were real.

          I was not attacking your friends crdibility just wondering how he concluded they were NATO and not something else.

          • Monday, we are going to try and contact him. He said he took cell phone pics.

            If I can get them….you’ll get them as soon as possible.

            In the meantime, you can go to Cherokee Scout Newspaper online….they had another article about trouble in Tellico this week.

  34. Greetings Fellow concerned citizens!

    How refreshing it is to read the thoughts of sober serious seekers of the truth! We are too often divided by our politicos. I have reached similar conclusions visa vis the parties. The Government will by its very nature grow if not checked. Our politicians have learned that the key to perpetual re-election is giving their base goodies (read earmarks and pork). This is a danger we were warned about.

    I am a vet as well and I think the ones that took the oath and payed a price for this nation SHOULD have some added say in how its affairs are conducted. I too keep that portion of the oath and loyalty to the CONSTITUTION as my ultimate beacon and loyalty. Sadly the politicians have disregarded it far too often. We as citizens have committed the error of not tending to the activities of our servant the government. WE are the final authority. As to what to do when the law and the Constitution are in conflict… the constitution must rule.

    What do we do when we become convinced that the government is operating outside the limits that we have imposed on it? What a tough question one I have asked myself as well….We must I believe, operate within the existing political structure as long as possible; there does come a time when revolution becomes necessary. God forbid we ever have to engage in that exercise. The cost in human terms is very very high and we have absolutely no assurance the the resulting Government will be as satisfactory as the one we currently have.

    I am a Southern Baptist I am a member of the NRA I mistrust the agenda of many lobbying groups they often times start making alliances and have hidden agendas I do not support. I believe in the inherent flaws of human beings but good leadership informed by sound morals and stark right and wrong definitions do help us treat each other properly. I find the discourse here thought provoking and encouraging. I too believe that charity should be voluntary and it begins at home.

    I believe the breakdown of the family is having severe effects on our society due in no small part to the no fault divorce law. I believe that our Federal Government should be the referee in Business and the markets and should refrain from controlling personal liberties beyond their impact directly on others freedoms.

    Thank you for listening to my diatribe but I see many here that I want alongside me as we try and rescue our great republic from its recent excesses.

    Takes a seat while clinging to the bible and his rifle.

  35. Random thoughts after reading the post and perusing the comments:

    “that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”

    And when they ARE the “domestic” enemies… then what?

    America isn’t marching “towards” socialism, but only deeper into socialism. It arrived long ago.

    A “statist” is one who believes that ‘government’ (the state) is a legitimate human endeavor. It doesn’t matter which side, “left” or “right”, the person comes from, only in the methods they believe in and use. It isn’t meant as an insult, but as a observation.

  36. I did a bit of research (from the local talk) on that NATO fleet. One gentleman ( a lawyer ) sent me this:

    The Senate Bill (S. 2433)

    Is a piece of legislation in the works
    that all Americans need to know about

    This Bill, SPONSORED by none other than
    our President, with the backing of now
    V/P Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations
    Committee, and liberal democrats in
    Congress, is nothing short of a massive
    giveaway of American wealth around the
    world and a betrayal of the public trust
    because, if passed, this bill would
    GIVE OVER many aspects of our sovereignty
    to the “United Nations”.

    The noble sounding name of this bill,
    “The Global Poverty Act” is actually
    a Global Tax, payable to the United
    Nations. If passed in the Senate, (the
    House has already passed it) this bill
    would REQUIRE the U.S. to increase our
    foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year or
    $845 BILLION over the next 13 years.
    That’s on top of the billions of dollars
    in foreign aid that we already pay out!
    In addition to the economic burdens this
    potential law would place on our
    precarious economy, the bill, if passed
    in the Senate, would also endanger our
    constitutionally protected rights and
    freedoms by obligating us to meet
    certain “United Nations” mandates.

    According to Senator Obama, “WE SHOULD”
    establish these United Nations’ goals
    as benchmarks for U. S. spending. What
    are they?

    The creation of a U.N.International
    “Criminal Court” having power to try
    and convict AMERICAN CITIZENS and
    SOLDIERS without any protection from
    the U.S.Constitution.

    1. A standing United Nations Army
    forcing U.S.soldiers to SERVE
    UNDER “U.N.” command.

    2. A Gun Ban on all small arms and
    light weapons which, would repeal
    our Second Amendment right to bear
    arms. The ratification of the
    “Kyoto” global warming treaty and
    numerous other anti-American measures.

    (Illinois is currently working to
    pass an enforced million dollar
    insurance policy on ALL gun owners).

    Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on
    Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden
    was) APPROVED this plan by a voice vote
    without any discussion or transparency.

    Now….I ask you…….is this true?

    • Black Flag says:

      US sovereignty is already under the UN.

      By US law, the government must abide by International law as the highest law in the land. That is, if a US treaty contradicts a law passed by Congress, the treaty wins.

  37. The only way out of this situation (Washington control) is to find a great Constitutional attorney and have him file a petition for “TERM LIMITS” …before the next election!

    Anyone, (R & D) that has served more than TWO YEARS, are not eligible to run again.

    Where would Obama get his backing then?

    • Black Flag says:

      The ‘backers’ have not changed.

      You are mesmerized by the puppet. Change the puppet yearly if you’d like – if the same puppet master still controls the strings, what has changed?

      • yes true….the Illuminati motto….”control the ignorant masses”

        But still…professional polititians should be removed.

  38. Hello, I just thought I would post a comment and let you know your page layout is really messed up on the Firefox browser. Seems to work fine on IE though. Anyways keep up the great work.


  1. […] one blogger has written about America’s march towards socialism. There are two parts: part 1 and part […]

%d bloggers like this: